Particle System

Written by
Joshua Jay

Designed by
Andi Gladwin

Cover design and Particle System imagery by

Michał Kociołek

Photography by
Mark Woodsford
ISBN: 978-1-954243-28-6
Copyright © 2024 by Vanishing Inc. Magic.
First edition. Printed in China
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic
or mechanical, without written permission of the copyright holder.
Acknowledgments
Thanks to Matt Baker, Eli Bosnick, Greg Chapman, Rod Doiron, Emre Ertekin, Harrison
Greenbaum, Ellis James, Kevin Kapinos, Michal Kociolek, Max Lukian, Joe McKay, Eric
Richardson, Jason Silberman, Matt Szat, Sarah Trustman, and Mike Vance. These fine friends
agreed to test the Particle System or read these pages before anyone else. They provided helpful
feedback, and I’m grateful. Matt and Joanna Baker also provided the equations that adorn the
in-sheets.

Thanks in particular to Andi Gladwin, my best friend. Andi has been supportive at every step
of this process: he served as editor, beta-audience, designer, and co-publisher.

Finally, I’d like to acknowledge the terrific memorized deck innovations given to us by Russell
“Rusduck” Duck, Simon Aronson, Juan Tamariz, Darwin Ortiz, and Michael Close. We all
stand on your shoulders.
Contents
Before We Begin…................................................................................................................. xiii
Foreword.................................................................................................................................. xv
Explanation of the Foreword................................................................................................ xvi
Another Foreword.................................................................................................................. xix
Introduction............................................................................................................................ xxi

Part I: The Particle System Explained....................................................................... 1

A Stack that Suits.................................................................................................................... 3
Switching Stacks without Looking Back...................................................................... 4
The Particle System at a Glance ........................................................................................... 6
A Closer Look......................................................................................................................... 8
A Problem, a Solution, and a Realization.................................................................... 9
Seamlessness.................................................................................................................... 10
No Risk............................................................................................................................. 10
Stack to System................................................................................................................ 11
Ready for the Fight.......................................................................................................... 12
The Particle Stack at a Glance............................................................................................... 13
Elements of the Particle Stack....................................................................................... 14
Memorizing Particle Stack............................................................................................. 17
Memory Aids................................................................................................................... 18
Getting into Particle Stack............................................................................................. 19
Particle Stack Subtleties.................................................................................................. 20
Putting in “The Work”........................................................................................................... 22
Marked Cards.................................................................................................................. 22
One Short Card............................................................................................................... 22
Breather Cards................................................................................................................. 24
Super Breather................................................................................................................. 25
Memorized Deck Maintenance..................................................................................... 27
The Particle Pack............................................................................................................. 27
False Shuffles and Cuts.......................................................................................................... 31
The Chili Shuffle.............................................................................................................. 31
The Group Shuffle........................................................................................................... 34
Zero Gravity Shuffle........................................................................................................ 36
True False Cut (Max Lukian)......................................................................................... 39
False False Shuffle (Lew Brooks)................................................................................... 39
The Undo Cut (Andi Gladwin)..................................................................................... 40
Ose Trilogy....................................................................................................................... 43
The Messy Utility............................................................................................................. 47
The Fractal False Cut...................................................................................................... 51
Half Stack False Shuffle................................................................................................... 56
Disorderly Thoughts ............................................................................................................. 59
Use Better Techniques.................................................................................................... 59
Present Your False Shuffles............................................................................................ 60
Super-Ultimate-Best-Ever-Deluxe-False-Shuffle 2.0.................................................. 61
 Part II: Close-up Magic............................................................................................. 63
Remember to Be Honest....................................................................................................... 65
Memorized X-Ray.................................................................................................................. 68
Breather Cutter ............................................................................................................... 72
Invisible Touch........................................................................................................................ 74
Back in Time .......................................................................................................................... 80
Bigger Back in Time........................................................................................................ 86
Thoughts on Thought-of Cards............................................................................................ 90
Riffing in the Particle System......................................................................................... 91
One and Done................................................................................................................. 92
Technique vs. Premise.................................................................................................... 94
Let’s Riff............................................................................................................................ 95
Marked Riffing................................................................................................................. 95
Breather Riffing............................................................................................................... 96
Maximum Contrast......................................................................................................... 97
Putting It All Together.................................................................................................... 97
Pick. See. Say. Think........................................................................................................ 98
Presentation for Thought-of Card ................................................................................ 99
The Imaginary Card Trick..................................................................................................... 105
Sequenced................................................................................................................................ 109
The Curious Incident............................................................................................................. 114
The Curious Incident with the Particle System........................................................... 120
A Surprise................................................................................................................................ 123
Three Fallacies......................................................................................................................... 125

Part III: The Parlor Show.......................................................................................... 129

Fooling About......................................................................................................................... 131
Matching the Cards................................................................................................................ 135
Simulated Double Undercut.......................................................................................... 137
Memorized Multiple Selection ............................................................................................ 140
Dribblocation................................................................................................................... 142
Two for One..................................................................................................................... 143
Card to Box Sequence..................................................................................................... 146
Weighing Across..................................................................................................................... 148
Weighing Across Light................................................................................................... 151
One Card Poker...................................................................................................................... 154
Fireworks Finale..................................................................................................................... 161

Part IV: Miscellaneous Effects................................................................................... 165

Think as I Think...................................................................................................................... 167
Particle Pair............................................................................................................................. 170
The No-Card Index................................................................................................................ 173
The Same, But Different......................................................................................................... 183
Catch This................................................................................................................................ 187
Distilled.................................................................................................................................... 193
The Magic Square................................................................................................................... 199
Triple Pocket........................................................................................................................... 205

viii
Part V: The Memorized Filter................................................................................... 209
Flush Brush............................................................................................................................. 211
Chaos....................................................................................................................................... 215
Rubbed Away.......................................................................................................................... 220
Another Bottom Feeder......................................................................................................... 223
Matching Hand....................................................................................................................... 229
Quicker Dead.......................................................................................................................... 232
Moe’s Memorized Move-a-Card........................................................................................... 234

Part VI: The Gambling Show.................................................................................... 237

Aces and Kings Production................................................................................................... 239
The Face Change............................................................................................................. 240
Dribblocation with Cover Card.................................................................................... 241
Riffing....................................................................................................................................... 244
Ten Card Poker Deal.............................................................................................................. 245
The Particle Gambling Demo............................................................................................... 253

Epilogue..................................................................................................................... 257
Three Act Structure................................................................................................................ 259
Your Turn................................................................................................................................ 265
Restraint................................................................................................................................... 270
Forgetting the Point............................................................................................................... 273

ix
“Particles are the most
remarkable things in the
world because they’re
the building blocks
of everything. [They]
transcend space and time…
and are predictors of the
future. Particles are the
closest things we know to
real magic.”
—David Henkle, Unraveling the Cosmos
 For Simon Aronson and Darwin Ortiz. What I
wouldn’t give for a chance to chat about all this
with you guys.

With Simon and Ginny Aronson With Andi Gladwin and Darwin Ortiz

xii
Before We Begin…
I realize that some readers aren’t interested in switching stacks but are still eager to incorporate
new material into their own arrangements. Throughout this book, I’ve labeled the tricks and
techniques so you can easily navigate what will work with any stack and what works only with
the Particle System.

For those who wish to test-drive the Particle System before committing the whole stack to
memory, I’ve identified the effects that don’t require any memorization at all with the following
graphic.

One of my biggest considerations when adding new material to my repertoire is whether an

effect can be done entirely in the hands. While you may differ, I often find myself in situations
without a table to make long spreads or piles of cards. Memorized deck magic very often
requires a large, padded surface, which is, perhaps, a reason so little of this sort of magic is
performed professionally. If you’re looking for material you can do anywhere, entirely in your
hands, look for this symbol:

xiii
 Last one: as you’ll soon discover, I spend significant energy thinking about magic effects you
can perform around a stacked deck. These are tricks that might not use the principles of a
memorized deck, but they don’t disorder the cards. They provide variety in a memorized deck
set, and help camouflage the use of any setup. I call effects of this kind “Stack-Sustainable.”
And they’re labeled like this:

Throughout these pages I use the word “spectator” to refer to someone who’s watching and
“participant” for anyone who’s actually involved in the trick. I use he/him pronouns for the
performer for the simple reason that I identify as male and I’m describing how I handle these
effects. I use she/her pronouns for the participants to distinguish easily between the performer
and the participant. However, the magic world would benefit greatly from more memorized
deck users of all genders.

Video
I have provided performance videos of much of the material in this book so that you can see
the effects in front of lay audiences. I have also provided video explanations as a companion to
the descriptions that follow. The footage was recorded at the Rhapsody Theater in Chicago in
April 2024.

I strongly suggest you read the book first (particularly sections 1-3) before accessing any
videos. This will help you understand the system best.

https://www.magicexp.com/particle
Password: system

xiv
Foreword
By Darwin Ortiz

I first met Joshua Jay

xv
 Explanation of the
Foreword
You may have noticed that Darwin’s foreword was a tad abrupt and a touch understated. I can
explain.

I started writing this book in the summer of 2019. And before I wrote a word of it, I knew
exactly who I wanted to write the introduction: Simon Aronson. I first met Simon when I was
thirteen years old, which is when he taught me his own memorized stack order. He was a
mentor and a friend. He came to New York to see my show, Six Impossible Things, and after the
show I mustered up the courage to ask him. He agreed. I was overjoyed. “Send it over when
you’re ready,” he said. “No rush.”

Simon passed away twelve days later. I was devastated. I think of him often, and his unexpected
passing is still raw in my mind.

Flash forward four years, to 2023. At long last, I finished the book you’re about to read– but still
didn’t have a foreword. With Simon gone, who could introduce this material? Who do I know
and admire who also knows my work intimately, who also has some authority on memorized
deck magic? Darwin Ortiz–one of my heroes in magic. I went to see Darwin in person, in
Washington D.C., to ask him if he would consider writing the foreword.

“When do you need it?” he asked. This was Darwin’s no-fuss way of saying he would write it.
I was so relieved–stunned, to be honest–but I played it cool.

“A month, if that works for you.”

A month went by, and I hadn’t heard from Darwin yet. On September 13th, I checked in with
him to see if he had made any progress. “I’m almost done,” Darwin replied.

Darwin passed away exactly one month later.

I waited two months before I made it weird. I wrote to his sister, Catherine, to explain the
situation. “There’s a document on Darwin’s computer,” I told her. “I’m sure of it. And that
document is more important to me than you could ever realize. If you could find it in your
heart to look on his hard drive for something in my name, or under the name ‘Particle System,’
I would be grateful forever.”

xvi
Catherine wrote back a week later. “Joshua,” she wrote, “Good news and bad news. The good
news is that we found the document you’re looking for. The bad news is that the entirety of the
document this half a sentence:

I first met Joshua Jay

That was it; that’s all he wrote. I thought about trying to extrapolate the rest of the foreword
(with phrases like “best in the world,” “the only book on stack work you’ll ever need,” and “like
a son to me”), but, out of the deepest respect and admiration, his foreword–exactly as he wrote
it–appears in these pages just as you read it.

This still leaves me in a predicament. Do I dare ask another magician I admire to write a
foreword? Or is asking for this favor killing the world’s greatest magicians? I’m two for two
already, and I’m terrified to go three for three.

So that leaves me with only one option: ask my best friend and co-publisher, Andi Gladwin. I
know Andi would do anything for me, and I also know that upon his passing, I would potentially
end up as the sole publisher of this book, and owner of our company. A true win-win.

Without further ado, here’s Andi’s introduction. If you turn the page and his foreword is there,
it means he made it.

Phew.

xvii
Another Foreword
By Andi Gladwin

Ten years ago, I decided it was finally time to memorize a deck of cards. I faced the same critical
decision you’re about to tackle: whose stack should I memorize? This was no trivial matter, as
the process of memorisation feels almost permanent, and choosing the wrong deck would be a
curse that felt potentially undoable, especially for someone with such a feeble memory as mine.

“Create your own stack,” several friends advised me. Their rationale seemed straightforward:
this way, I could ensure that the order was perfectly tailored to my repertoire, building the
routines I use the most into the stack I memorised.

But as I started to piece together a stack based on the routines I perform most frequently, I
came to the realization that this often-provided advice of creating your own stack was less
fruitful than it seemed. Sure, I’d have some of my favourite routines at my fingertips, but I’d
lose out on two vital things: a mathematical order that opens up a world of effects (like the
ones you’re about to learn in Josh’s system), and a community of people all working together to
squeeze as much juice out of the stack as possible. I eventually came to the ultimate conclusion
that what Josh has created with the Particle System is nearly ideal for me.

For years now, I have watched with a mix of admiration and professional jealousy as Josh pulls
off seemingly impossible feats of card magic with ease, all thanks to his system. What you’re
about to read is the culmination of two decades of thoughtful, active study into memorised
deck magic.

Josh’s journey with the memorised deck began in 1994 when he learned Simon Aronson’s stack.
He has worked extremely closely with Simon over the years, honing and dissecting every detail
to an obsessive degree—a trait he might have inherited from Simon himself. Josh’s drive to
perfect this material is evident in every trick, every shuffle, and every transition.

Simon considered Josh like family, and this book is a testament to their close relationship
(Josh edited and collaborated on much of Simon’s later work, as evidenced in Simon’s Try the
Impossible and Art Deco). Being one of Simon’s very few trusted mentees, you might expect this
stack to take on many properties of the Aronson stack, but Josh’s wide-reaching ideas led him
in a surprisingly different direction. He has combined those lessons with what he learned from
other mentors like Juan Tamariz and Darwin Ortiz to create a system that encapsulates what I
view as the best of all their work, as well as Simon’s.

xix
 But Josh’s stack does something that other stacks generally don’t do: the Particle Stack is a
system; it’s designed for use in formal and informal work, all the time. Josh’s experience as
a performer has influenced the literal makeup of the stack. Put simply, this is the stack for
workers.

Some of my favourite memories of Josh performing are when I realise that he has a deck in
stack, and then does an entire show out of it. I have watched in admiration as he transitions
from new deck order through various strong laypeople-focused routines, then returns to new
deck order for a closer. And that’s one of the most remarkable aspects of Josh’s system: the
versatility it offers in closing a show. There are multiple ways to bring a performance to a
stunning conclusion. I’ve seen them all, and they are all that good.

But my favourite effect with the Particle System is actually not any of the closing pieces you’ll
read in the pages ahead. But it is the effect he saves for last in this book: “Three Act Structure.”
It’s as simple as this: you name a card, and, without looking, he cuts right to it. I have seen
Josh perform this effect countless times, and it always gets devastating reactions. In my mind,
it has become his signature effect. Equally impressively, the system Josh has developed brings
this miracle into the realm of anyone who puts in the basic work. The method is creative, and
it breaks new ground; the results speak for themselves.

Out of everything tangible that Josh shares with you in these pages, there’s something else
that I hope you take from it–something between the lines. This material exudes experience. I
know this was important to Josh. The material in this book has been tested, honed, refined, and
reworked to be the best of his abilities. I have watched this progression, and I have seen this
material in front of lay audiences. Thanks to the video footage included, you can, too. You can
see some of my favourite routines performed live, and I hope you’ll agree that this stuff isn’t
a pipe dream. It’s cerebral, thoughtful card magic, and equal attention has been given to the
effects, the methods and the presentations.

One last point, and this is something I’m not sure Josh even realises yet. This book is more
than a guide; it is an invitation to join a community of people all working within the same
system. We’re in this together now, and I’m quite excited to see where we take it. Particle users,
assemble.

Andi Gladwin
United Kingdom, May 2024

xx
Introduction
Four years ago I did something most magicians would consider absurd: I abandoned the
memorized deck I had used for twenty years and created my own stack. This is a seismic shakeup
for a magician; it’s like moving to another house. Things were so comfortable before; I knew the
Aronson Stack inside and out, and I discovered all sorts of shortcuts and personalizations. I
dedicated enormous effort to get to that point, and I gave it all up. I started over. Why?

I gave up a stack and developed a system. I realized, as I’ll soon share with you, that a memorized
deck can be more than just a way to do think-a-card effects; it can be the operating system you
use when you perform card magic. Since no such system existed, I created one.

This system is designed for constant use, which doesn’t mean you won’t use a borrowed, shuffled
deck anymore. It means that more often than not, you’ll perform within this arrangement.
The deck you use is in a memorized order, but that’s just the start. The pack is also marked
and altered “tactilely.” You can perform some of card magic’s strongest effects from this deck
without disturbing the order of the cards. You can also locate any card named with near-perfect
accuracy in seconds. And at all times, you’re a cut away from a blockbuster ending worthy of
closing a show.

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

I designed the Particle System1 with three goals in mind.

First, I wanted a stack that could do more than just the name-a-card jazzing most of us enjoy
with a memorized deck. I wanted to create a stack that I could use all the time, with my favorite
non-stack effects built in, always ready to go. You can get into and out of new deck order easier
than any arrangement I’ve encountered. In a word, I wanted Practical.

Second, I wanted to build in the long-form magic effects that required lengthy setups. You
know the tricks I’m talking about: multiple phases that lead up to a spectacular ending. In
another word, Spectacle.

1. A note as you work through these pages: When I refer just to the order of the cards, I will refer to the Particle
Stack. When other methods are incorporated, such as marked cards or breathers, I will call it the Particle System.

xxi
 Third, I’m interested in the inner elegance of memorized deck magic. Developing this stack
reawakened my appreciation for the beauty and potential of mathematics in card magic. I
strive for that difficult balance between what an audience responds to, and what interests me.
Pretentious, perhaps, but I wanted this material to feel Artistic.

Practical. Spectacle. Artistic.

I call this arrangement the Particle Stack because it can be broken down into smaller sections—
particles, if you will—and these particles reveal layers upon layers upon layers of secret
features. The letters themselves are particles. Using just the letters in Particle Stack, we can
form the three foundational principles: Practical, Spectacle, Artistic.

xxii
If we look closer, we find another important aspect of the Particle Stack:

Needless to say, this material takes practice. I make no apologies for this. Memorized deck
magic is hard work. But don’t be intimidated. There’s a pattern to the Particle Stack, so it’s both
easier to memorize and get into than other arrangements.

Let’s look even closer.

Most memorized deck effects make use of an entire arrangement of cards, but the Particle
Stack specializes in certain segments of the stack that unlock particular features. You won’t use
all the cards for all the tricks; there are many features that make use of the partial stack and its
principles.

Lastly, if we look closer still, we can form two more words: lactate and carsick.

So, there’s that.

xxiii
 Within the annals of card magic, we tend to compartmentalize. We think about memorized
deck magic in its own category–with its own books and online forums and gurus. But to me,
the memorized deck is a tool that works best when mixed with other kinds of card magic. But
how, precisely, do you interface the two genres? Anyone who has spent even a little time with a
memorized deck will realize nearly all memorized deck tricks involve a selection, and much of
the time those cards must be named aloud. So how do we get a memorized deck trick to play
best with other great card effects?

What I offer in this book is a tool and a roadmap. The tool is the Particle System: it’s part
memorized deck, part marked deck, and partly a collection of some of my favorite card magic
without any kind of stack. This book is also a roadmap. I’ll share with you how everything
dovetails together harmoniously–how all of the methods built into the system can help you in
the card magic you already do, and how this system can unlock new possibilities you might not
have considered before.

The features built into the Particle Stack, taken separately, are just building blocks. But my hope
is that you’ll combine them together into sequences and setlists that eventually become…a
magic show. I hope this arrangement finds its way into your card box, and that you use these
tools as I do: as a system for performing card magic. This is a book of very small things. But
when combined in just the right way, they become practical, even artistic. They become a spectacle.

xxiv
Part I: The Particle
System Explained

It’s time to introduce you to the arrangement of cards that’s in my pocket

and on my mind every day. I’ll explain why I call it the Particle System
instead of the Particle Stack, and some of the features of this arrangement.

We’ll spend some time going over techniques that will help you memorize
the stack with ease, and some keys to making the stack look truly random.

After that we’ll explore some tactics that employ both memorized and
marked cards. We’ll also explore the tactile markings–the “work”–that you
can put into the cards to locate any card within seconds.

The second half of this chapter is devoted to false shuffles and cuts, with an
emphasis on techniques you’re unlikely to have encountered before.
A Stack that Suits
Don’t memorize this stack.

I’ll say that again. Don’t memorize this stack. Instead, you should do what I did,
and what Simon Aronson and Juan Tamariz did: figure out exactly what you need
in your stack, and create an order around that. Easier said than done. But if you
want the very best stack tailored to your needs, that’s the only way to go.

Stacks are like playlists; they’re customized to your tastes and interests. When
you memorize someone else’s stack, you’re listening to someone else’s playlist.
There’s nothing wrong with this in principle, but someone else’s arrangement
is unlikely to be perfectly tailored to your tastes in magic. Simon Aronson
understood this. “The best stack that you come up with is always the second stack
you come up with,” he said, “because, of course, you’ve learned from the first.”2

The best that I can offer you is to explain my values, my choices, my interests in
card magic. Then you can make the call about whether the Particle Stack is right
for you. You won’t agree with every choice I’ve made, and some of the features
that are important to me will be useless to you. The question is whether the Particle
Stack aligns with enough of your tastes in magic to invest your time in it.

Before we jump into the specifics of the Particle Stack I’d like to make a point I
haven’t seen articulated in memorized deck literature. It’s this: magic evolves, but
stacks do not.

The Aronson Stack was first published in The Card Ideas of Simon Aronson in
1978, but it was developed six years previously. Card magic in 1972 looked quite
different to the card magic we aspire to today.3 In particular, memorized deck
magic was still in its infancy; it was mostly card locations and complex procedures.
Even Simon Aronson’s memorized deck magic, which I hold in the very highest
esteem, improved drastically as his thinking evolved. Specifically, memorized
deck magic has become synonymous with what Simon Aronson called the Open
Index principle: a card is named, located, and produced as quickly as possible.
Michael Close expanded on the idea as “jazzing,” though recently he has recanted
this term in favor of different music jargon: “riffing.”

2. Gladwin, Andi and Joshua Jay. Simon Aronson: A Man to Remember, 2019.
3. There are classics that transcend trends and time—of course there are. But these are the
exceptions, not the rule.
3
 My observation is that most professional magicians use memorized stacks to produce named
cards; this is certainly my focus within the genre. And most of us are using stacks developed
before jazzing—sorry, riffing—was a thing. Ideally, the tools we use should be tailored to their
purposes, not the other way around. I’m not suggesting that you can’t do jazz miracles from any
stack; you can. But I contend that if we built a stack with riffing in mind, we unlock so much
more potential.

Tastes evolve, too. In 1972, the effects that meant enough to Simon Aronson to build into
his stack were Michael Zens’ “Any Poker Hand Called For,”4 “The Ten Card Poker Deal,” a
blockbuster poker demonstration, and a bank of cards that spelled from the top of the deck.
All fine tricks, but none would make my own personal list of essential performance pieces. As
I discovered, it’s incredibly difficult to weave multiple setups into an arrangement without each
one interfering with the other. There are only so many tricks you can build into a stack, so you
ought to love the tricks built into the arrangement you memorize.

It’s possible, of course, to reverse-engineer existing tricks into a particular stack. But the
results typically aren’t impressive. The sort of magic one creates when staring at a memorized
deck is usually full of workarounds, exceptions, and adjustments. Rather than designing effects
for a particular stack, I suggest designing a stack for particular effects. That’s what I’ve done,
and I’m eager to share it with you in the next chapter.

Switching Stacks without Looking Back

If you’ve already memorized a stack, you may feel locked in to your current arrangement, or
some allegiance to it based on the work you’ve already put in. There are almost certainly things
you would change in your stack, but the convenience of having it already memorized makes
switching a daunting proposition.

Still, allow me to pose three questions to you.

1. In the context of your own shows, how often do your spectators study the order
of the cards? Maybe you perform tricks in which the participants spread through the
deck face up and remove particular cards. Maybe you call out the order of the stack aloud.
Maybe, but not likely. My guess is that, if you’re honest with yourself, the order of the pack
is rarely displayed.
2. How many tricks do you use that are built into your stack? Which features that are
unique to your stack do you use regularly? I found that even my favorite features from
Aronson Stack were things I rarely performed. So rarely, in fact, that I lacked the confidence
that I could remember them under fire. Which brings us to the last question…
3. What do you wish was built into your stack? Your wish list won’t be exactly the same
as mine, but what the Particle System offers in terms of built-in features is far beyond any
other stack that I’m aware of. You might consider some of these features as you determine
whether it’s time for a switch.

4. See Zens, Michael F., “Call your Hand,” The Jinx, 1937, issue 36.
4
A final observation. Magicians who haven’t memorized a deck before often fret about the
daunting task of memorizing it. But for those of us who have already memorized a stack, the
task seems miniscule in hindsight. The week or two that it takes to memorize a stack is nothing
in comparison to the opportunities it creates...forever. My point is that switching stacks isn’t
particularly difficult. And if it provided you a better opener or a more impressive closer or a
quicker way to find thought-of cards...well, isn’t that worth a week of your time?

Enough generalities; let’s jump in. As Physicist Richard Harem wrote, “Particles are potential.”
It’s time to explore the tricks and features built into the Particle Stack so you can better
understand this system’s potential.

5
 The Particle
System at a
Glance
• You’ll memorize the Particle Stack almost twice as fast as other
arrangements due to the subtle pattern in the order.

• You can get into Particle Stack from new deck order with just two
out-faro shuffles.

• You can end your show by causing all the cards to return to new
deck order. There are two “fireworks” endings that allow you to
transition seamlessly back to new deck order without any awkward
adjustments or tedious tricks.

• You’ll be able to locate any thought-of card with near-perfect

accuracy thanks to the markings and breathers spaced throughout
the deck.

• The Aces and Kings are conveniently interlaced on the top and
bottom of the deck, ready to be used in your favorite effects
without disturbing the rest of the cards.

• You’ll never be asked to switch cards around or make awkward

adjustments so that you can perform an effect. Built in means built
in.

• The tricks in these pages can be combined to form three thirty-

minute shows—shows I’ve performed for audiences at the Magic
Castle, on cruise ships, and at private engagements. Each of the
three shows follows a structure: an opener, middle effects, and a
closer. There’s a dramatic build and thematic elements. And all of
them use just one pack of cards.

• You can perform a majority of the built-in effects without

disturbing the order of the stack.

6
• Most of the effects built into the Particle System can be done
quickly and without a table; the focus is on punchy, direct effects
rather than long-form routines.

• The two effects built into the top and bottom of the deck are two
of the strongest “classic” effects in all of card magic: “Be Honest,
What Is It?” and “Matching the Cards.”

• Not all effects with the Particle System require selected cards (nearly
all published memorized deck work does). You’ll be able to perform
strong versions of “Cards Across,” “Weighing the Cards,” vanishes,
productions, and pseudo-memorization routines.

• This stack is in stay-stack order, sometimes called mirror stack,

which makes a wide range of mathematical-based effects accessible
to you at any time.

• The entire pack is in what’s called a 14/15 stack, meaning that

the values of any pair of consecutive cards, taken from anywhere
within the stack, add up to 14 or 15.

• Ben Harris and Steve Shufton’s sensational, overlooked “X-Ray”

effect is built into the Particle System.

• With one cut of the cards and without any false deals, you can deal
yourself a royal flush in Spades, in order.

• With one cut of the cards you can deal yourself a perfect “grand-
slam” bridge hand. Then you deal your opponents perfect bridge
hands, too.

• A sequence of ten cards used for the classic “Ten Card Poker Deal”
effect is built into the Particle Stack.

• In addition to two new-deck-order endings, there is a Sympathetic

Cards finale effect in which you cause every card to find its mate.

• Any double turnover will contain cards that contrast in color and value.

• You won’t read a single trick I haven’t used extensively in my

professional work. Nobody needs fifteen poker deals, or ways to
spell to every four-of-a-kind. What you’ll find is material that I’ve
pushed to the furthest extent of my abilities.

7
 A Closer Look
Let’s start at the top and work our way down. The very top (and bottom) of the
Particle Stack has two tricks built in. These are tricks you don’t even have to cut the
cards to activate. They are each ready to go at all times: “Matching the Cards”5 and
“Be Honest, What Is It?”6 These two tricks aren’t mine, of course; they’re classics
of magic. And they are not simply good tricks to build into an arrangement. They
are astounding card effects. With “Matching the Cards,” you find four Kings and
change them into four Aces; Dai Vernon called it the best card trick for laymen.7
In “Be Honest, What Is It?” you change two black Kings into red Aces in the
participant’s hand. While it’s an overstatement to say that this trick launched David
Blaine’s career, it’s not an exaggeration to contend that Blaine wouldn’t be where he
is without “Be Honest, What Is It?” I’d venture to say that these are two of the top
five strongest card effects ever created. And we’re only eight cards in.

A foundational effect woven into the length of the stack is “X-Ray” by Ben Harris
and Steve Shufton. In effect, a participant cuts anywhere and turns the cut-to card
face up in the face-down deck. The magician then looks “through” the deck, with
x-ray vision, to name the cut-to card. He then looks “through” the cards above it and
names the position this card falls at in the pack. It’s deceptive for both magicians
and laypeople; I was fooled the first time I saw it. I built “X-Ray” into Particle Stack,
and its method unlocks all sorts of hidden tools.

There are some gambling features in Particle Stack, too. But I have a confession to
make: I am a great admirer of gambling effects, but the shorter, the better. Get to
the royal flush in Spades, and move on. With this in mind, I’ve built in just that: with
a simple cut of the cards you can deal yourself a royal flush (in numerical order).
What’s more, if you continue dealing through the rest of the deck, you can deal
yourself a “perfect” bridge hand: all the Spades. For good measure I’ve also built
in a setup of ten cards used for the Ten Card Poker Deal. I don’t have any special
work on this plot, but others do, and it’s a handy feature from Aronson Stack that
I’ve carried over.

5. See Vernon, Dai, “Matching the Cards,” Inner Secrets of Card Magic, 1959, p. 22.
6. See Fechter, Eddie, The Magician Nitely, 1974, p. 10.
7. As imparted by Roberto Giobbi. “When Lewis Ganson asked Dai Vernon which one he considered
to be the best card trick for laymen, the Professor didn’t hesitate to answer, ‘Matching the Cards,’ by
Nate Leipzig.” See Giobbi, Roberto, “The Ten Best Card Tricks,” PDF, no date.

8
My main focus in composing the Particle Stack is finales. I’ve built in three. The first is the
aforementioned Poker Deal. I told you that you can deal a royal flush and then a perfect bridge
hand. What I didn’t mention is that the other three players are also dealt perfect bridge hands,
in the other three suits. This is the classic “fireworks” ending for a gambling routine. And it’s
all right there, woven into the stack without any adjustments.

The other way to get to a new-deck-order ending is through an original handling of “The
Tantalizer.” You deal through a deck of cards until you’ve dealt all the cards to the participant
and just one card to yourself…the selection. At the end of “The Tantalizer,” the entire deck is
in order. I tend to do a Suit Production, one by one, of the Diamonds, and then reveal all the
other suits in order at once. I close my formal close-up show with this sequence; it’s powerful.

A Problem, a Solution, and a Realization

The features of the Particle Stack offer more than any other stack I’ve encountered. You’ll be
able to judge this for yourself in the five chapters that follow. But these features come at a price:
the arrangement doesn’t look as random as other memorized decks. When the cards are spread
on the table, even a casual study will reveal a dismaying pattern to a layperson. This is the price
we pay for such potent tools at our fingertips. It’s a problem.

But the problem has a solution. I’ve developed dodges and displays that allow the deck to be
shown face up without concern. There are sections of Particle Stack that look more random
than others, and these displays capitalize on this. You can read about those on p. 20.

All this comes with a realization. In the twenty years I used Aronson Stack, there wasn’t a
single routine in my repertoire in which the spectators scrutinized the order of the cards. I
surprised myself with this realization, so I took it further. I watched Simon Aronson’s Sessions
with Simon DVD series, and there were only two moments (in four hours of material) when a
participant looked through the memorized deck face up. I’ve observed Juan Tamariz live, doing
a full memorized-deck set, and here, too, I didn’t observe a single moment when the spectators
studied the order of the cards. The problem, it seems, isn’t really a problem at all.

The Particle Stack can withstand a cursory glance, and I’ll often spread it face up on a table
for all to see as I speak with the audience.8 The only thing this arrangement won’t survive is
someone analyzing the order.

Of far more importance than the “look” of the stack is its apparent randomness in the minds
of the viewers. In my experience, this is almost entirely determined by the frequency and
effectiveness of the false shuffles you use. It’s essential that there is a near-constant shuffling
and cutting between and during most of the tricks performed with a memorized deck.

8. Consider John Kennedy’s Mind Power Deck, or the many gaffed packs of repeating duplicates. These are often
spread face up as a participant is invited to think of a card. If a pack with multiple duplicate cards can survive a
studied glance, I have great confidence that a pack with a somewhat discernable pattern can survive less scrutiny.

9
 I’ve spent a fair amount of time extolling the virtues of Particle Stack, so I want to make
clear its biggest drawback. When I had integrated my bucket list of tools and tricks into
the stack, there was just no way to hide certain patterns. Hiding those tools would require
inelegant adjustments before each trick, or destroying the stack after each one. Every decision
has trade-offs. I made the decision that the Particle Stack would be loaded with features, but less
“examinable” than other stacks.

As someone who has worked with a memorized pack extensively (both Particle Stack and
Aronson Stack), I can’t emphasize enough that in my own personal experience, the look of the
order is not a critical point. Of course, reasonable minds may disagree.

Seamlessness
The Particle Stack is loaded with features I haven’t mentioned yet. But it’s important to note
what you won’t find in any of these tricks: adjustments. You’ll find that many built-in effects
in other stacks require substantial alterations to the order before or after a performance. No
justification is provided; the trick just requires this fiddling before you do it. Unacceptable—to
me, anyway.

The routines you’ll find built into Particle Stack are, literally, built in. You’ll often have to cut
the pack—this is reasonable, I think, given how frequently a memorized deck should appear to
be shuffled. But nearly all the routines work automatically and completely from the existing
order. At most, the adjustments are a natural part of the effect. And all but the finales leave the
deck back in Particle Stack.

No Risk
At the Las Vegas Desert Seminar in the late ‘90s, I saw Martin Nash fail, over and over and
over, trying to do the big finish of his legendary “Ovation” act.9 Martin was an exceptional
card magician. He had a knack for blending great, existing tricks into original routines that
flowed, one into the next. But long routines of this kind often pivot entirely on every single
card being dealt and picked up in the right order. If you make one mistake—one bottom deal
that should be a second, or pick up packets from left to right instead of right to left—the trick
won’t work. Not only that, but nothing else works in the entire act because the order of the
cards is compromised.

The element of risk in routines like this is untenable in the real world; if more magicians
realized this truth, there would be far fewer magic “fails.” Too many memorized deck effects
suffer from this unusual drawback: beautiful constructions, but too many moving parts. One
could argue that all magic tricks have an element of risk, and that any card trick can fail at
any time. Most card magic relies on a few sleights or a small setup. And most mistakes can be
rectified in performance without the audience perceiving the error; there’s very little a quick
cull can’t fix. But stack magic is far more perilous because there are fifty-two moving parts; a
single card can throw off everything.

9. “Ovation” doesn’t rely on a memorized deck, but the deck must be fully stacked.
10
Here’s another example: many magicians who play with a memorized deck for even a short
amount of time become fascinated with interlocking chains. I’ve seen many published routines
in which a memorized deck is given a fair riffle shuffle. Then, under the guise of spreading the
cards face up, the performer separates the upper half from the lower half using a cull. Have you
ever tried this under fire? It’s completely impractical to cull a seemingly random assortment
of cards while talking without missing one card. If you miss one…everything is ruined. This
is the sort of method that has an alluring simplicity to it, but that doesn’t work well under
pressure—at least not for me.

Let me be brutally honest: most memorized deck magic is for an audience of magicians, or
perhaps more accurately, for magic readers. There’s an elegance to the math; often each phase
sets up the next. But this sort of magic is also tied to procedure: dealing, collecting packets, and
doing math in your head. There is more opportunity for error in memorized deck magic than
in most other genres of card magic.

In my years in magic I’ve developed a kind of intuition about the kind of material that can be
rehearsed to essentially “never” go wrong in my show. I think I also have a good handle on the
kinds of things that would eventually go wrong for me (and others) in performing conditions.
I’ve been careful to include only material in this collection that is reliable under all conditions,
at all times.

Stack to System
So far I’ve referred to the Particle Stack as just that—a stack. But I’d like you to start thinking
about it as a system; if you open your eyes to it, the Particle System is a Swiss Army knife of
tools and tricks that can enhance the magic you already do.

Magicians think about memorized decks as a method. But when we think of it as a system we
unlock all sorts of other possibilities. Rather than switching in the Particle Stack when you
wish to perform an effect or produce a participant’s thought-of card, why not use the deck for
the entire set?

The Particle Stack can assist you in tricks that would seemingly have nothing to do with
memorized deck magic. For example, if you’re performing a “Cards Across” routine, you can
know instantly how many cards a participant has cut off before she counts them. If you’re
performing a favorite pick-a-card routine, you can alter it to be a name-a-card routine. Card
controls that would typically require a break are rendered breakless. And remember: part of
the Particle System is that you’re using a marked deck. So there’s no more need for peeks or
glimpses, or culling force cards before you force them. I’ll go into more than a dozen useful
shortcuts that you can integrate into your card work if you adopt the Particle System. It won’t
replace your entire repertoire; there are too many great tricks that require spectators to shuffle
and deal in ways that would destroy a stack. But there’s enough great material that not only can
be done within the Particle System, but is enhanced by the system, that I hope you’ll consider
this shift in thinking.

11
 To use the Particle System to its full potential, you have to be willing to invest in it completely.
In computer terms, this is a switch in operating systems; you’ll run much of your existing
magic through the Particle System. This also means accepting that the deck you use is not only
stacked, but prepared.

Ready for the Fight

A blind spot for many memorized deck users is their strange desire to use a completely
unaltered pack. A magician will think nothing of taking five minutes to set up fifty-two cards
but will refuse to take another minute to put in breather crimps or a short card. Or, a magician
will be okay switching in and out a memorized deck, but he won’t be willing to switch in a
marked, memorized deck because it’s “gaffed.” To some extent I understand the desire to use a
completely ordinary pack. When the memorized deck set is finished, the deck can be shuffled
and used as normal. And in the rarest of cases, a magician may wish to borrow a deck and do
a sequence to get into stack. What I don’t understand is not using breathers or marked cards
because of some sort of honor system. A friend told me, “It just feels like I’m bringing a gun
to a knife fight.”

Let’s assume that 99% of the time, we will use our own deck of cards when we perform magic.
If you take the time to put fifty-two cards into a specific order, why not take an additional
moment to alter a few more cards? It will drastically improve the ease and appearance of your
work. And since marked decks are now affordable and easily available, I see little reason not to
try it.

I think of it like this: we’re not discussing impromptu card magic; there are hundreds of magic
books that do. We’re discussing a niche in magic that requires you to use your own pack, set up
in a very specific order. Why not also prepare it with every possible advantage? This is magic,
not a duel. I encourage you to bring a gun to this knife fight.

12
 The Particle Stack
at a Glance
Without further ado, this is the Particle Stack.

And here it is in a table:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
AH KS AD KC 2H QS 2D QC 3H JS 3D JC 4H
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
10S 4D 10C 5H 9S 5D 9C 6H 8S 6D 8C 7H 7S
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
7D 7C 8H 6S 8D 6C 9H 5S 9D 5C 10H 4S 10D
40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52
4C JH 3S JD 3C QH 2S QD 2C KH AS KD AC
13
 But that isn’t how anyone will ever see it. This is how the stack looks when the pack has been
cut and then spread as explained on p. 20:

This section will cover what the stack is and how to memorize it. I’m realistic about the fact
that you’re unlikely to memorize the deck before you read the book. I get it. I ask of you only
this: work through this book with a marked, crimped, ordered pack. In other words, give the
“system” a try. I think you’ll understand it more thoroughly and enjoy the experience that way.
Having it in your hands is truly the only way to understand how easy it is to navigate to any
card in a matter of seconds.

Elements of the Particle Stack

You’ll notice that the Particle Stack is just four interlocking chains: the two red suits run in
order from top to bottom, and the two black suits run in order from bottom to top. That’s it.

Hearts in color and other cards in black and white and faded out

Clubs cards in focus and other cards greyed out

14
The colors alternate throughout the stack, so all of the odd positions are red and all of the even
positions are black.

Colors alternating

The suits alternate evenly in sequence: Hearts, Spades, Diamonds, Clubs. This is the famous
CHaSeD order, just beginning with a Heart. Observe that the mate of any card is just two cards
away.

Mates

Also notice that the Particle Stack is, in itself, in stay-stack, sometimes called mirror stack. That
is, the top half is a mirror image of the bottom half, but with opposite colors (an Ace on top
and bottom, a King second from the top and second from the bottom, a Jack tenth from the top
and tenth from the bottom, etc.).

Ace on top and bottom

King second from top and bottom

Stay Stack

This conveniently situates the Aces and Kings together, alternating, on top and bottom, making
it easy to perform four-Ace routines without disturbing the order of the deck. Additionally,
it positions one four-of-a-kind together in the stack, at dead center: the four Sevens. We’ll
make use of this during thought-of card “riffing.” Many magicians have had to develop
cumbersome workarounds so that they can perform four-of-a-kind tricks from other stacks.
This involves tabling a deck with four stepped packets or injogs. None of that is necessary with
this arrangement.

15
 Kings and Aces
The tenth, twentieth, thirtieth, fortieth and 52nd cards (the JS, 9C, 6S, 4C, and AC) will later
be altered as part of the Particle System. They will serve both as the method for “X-Ray” and
as guidelines to quickly access any card called for. But the properties of these four cards are
interesting: JS, 9C, 6S, 4C. They form a perfect set for progressive fishing;10 that is, there is
ideal diversity among these cards to eliminate them one by one with questions. If someone cuts
the pack, they will automatically cut to one of these breather cards. You can then ask a series
of questions to discern the value of their card.

10 20 30 40 52

X-Ray

Here’s an even more interesting aspect of the stack: the cards immediately below these crimped
cards have the same qualities: they form a perfect progressive fishing set. This will provide the
basis for “Memorized X-Ray” (p. 92), one of the strongest effects with the Particle System.

X-Ray2

One of the most arcane features of the stack is what I call the create-a-card paradox. It’s a
mouthful to say, but it’s actually quite simple to see for yourself, if you put the cards in order.
It’s this: any two adjacent cards will create two cards found together elsewhere in the stack. For
example, take two cards next to each other, like the Nine of Hearts (33) and the Five of Spades
(34). The inverse pair is the Five of Hearts (17) and the Nine of Spades (18).

10. This idea appears to originate with Gene Grant, though no specific source is known.

16
 Inverse Pair

Inverse Pair

Inverse Pairs

Getting into Particle Stack from new deck order takes just two out-faro shuffles. But that won’t
be useful to you until you memorize the deck. So let’s tackle that next.

Memorizing Particle Stack

I’m struck by how anyone could be deterred from the wonderful world of memorized deck
magic simply because they won’t memorize a deck. It takes five days; three if you work at it.
You’ll be able to use it forever.

I’ve read all sorts of mnemonic devices designed to help magicians memorize the deck. Juan
Tamariz offers five ways: auditory, visual, muscular, conceptual, and “security.” Simon Aronson
offered an association method, pairing each card with a silly image, and linking those images in
your mind. There are apps, too, that quiz you on segments of the stack as you learn them. The
best of these, by far, is the book and memory system taught by David and Sarah Trustman,
called The Memory Arts.11

Here’s my advice. Just sit down and do it. I found myself at a family gathering while in the
midst of developing the Particle Stack. My little cousin, Michael, was studying for a history
test on the American Revolutionary War—names of generals, dates of battles, Congressional
acts, all sorts of facts and figures written on both sides of a stack of notecards. “Hey, Michael,”
I asked, “how many notecards are you memorizing for that test?”

“About a hundred or so.” For one class. For one test. He’s fourteen. You can do this.

Take an old deck and arrange it in Particle Stack. Then write the stack number of each card on
the back. Limit yourself to ten cards per day. You can memorize ten cards quite quickly—in a
matter of minutes—but resist the urge to keep going. Instead, just hone in on those ten cards.
Recite them in order, then in reverse order. Then shuffle the packet and recite the cards for each
stack number. Then flip the cards over and recite the stack number for each card. Shuffle the
cards and put them in order. Finally, shuffle some cards face up and others face down, so you
can mix calling out cards and stack numbers.

I can’t tell you anything in this section that isn’t common sense: you have to know the stack
cold. You have to know the cards above and below every card, and you have to be able to recall

11. See Trustman, David and Sarah, The Memory Arts, 2017.

17
 these things instantly. Each day (or hour, or lunch break) add ten more cards, and repeat these
drills with all twenty cards.

Beta-testers for the Particle Stack all made a similar observation: that they were able to memorize
this stack “twice as fast” since all pairs of cards are coupled together. It’s a “memorize one and
remember the other free” scenario, since remembering one card of a pair makes the other
almost automatic. In other words, the two red Aces are at positions 1 and 3; the two black
Tens are at positions 14 and 16. When you’re less sure of the order, knowing that these pairs
are always two apart is a helpful crutch. There are other crutches, too. All the black cards are
even and all the red cards are odd; the suits all fall in CHaSeD order (beginning with Hearts).
You’ll eventually need to know every card and stack number instantly, but as you’re learning
it’s helpful to be able to work out a card based on its value, color, and suit.

Memorizing a deck isn’t particularly fun, but I’ve discovered it isn’t particularly unpleasant
either. Like solving a puzzle or playing a sport, it requires your complete concentration. And
with a task this easy, you’ll see instant results. This makes the time pass quickly.

I’ll make one final observation and then we’ll move on. I’m always struck by how some magicians
weigh their time. They wince at the idea of spending ten hours in the service of memorizing
a deck; at lectures the most common question I’m asked is whether memorizing a deck is really
worth the serious time involved.

The average American watches in excess of four hours of television per day. That means that if
you replaced just three days of Netflix with work on this stack, you’d have it memorized forever.
So the question isn’t whether this tool—a memorized deck—is worth the time. For most of us,
the question is whether this stack is worth more to you than three days of television. And the
answer, of course, is that it depends on the quality of the TV shows you watch.

Memory Aids
There are three shortcuts that will drastically shorten the time it takes you to memorize the
order. Put any deck in Particle Stack and read through these key points until they’re clear in
your mind. Then start memorizing.

1. You can easily determine any card by the card next to it. The entire stack runs in CHaSeD,
order, but starting with a Heart: Hearts, Spades, Diamonds, and Clubs. And all pairs next to
each other add up to 14, except for pairs that start with Clubs, which add up to 15.

A few examples will make this clear. Suppose you spot the Ten of Spades. The card after
any Spade will always be a Diamond. And since all pairs add up to 14, you subtract Ten (the
value of the Ten of Spades) from 14. This is four. You know the next card is the Four of
Diamonds.

Consider the Eight of Hearts. It’s a Heart, so you know the next card will be a Spade. And
14-8=6. So the Six of Spades follows the Eight of Hearts.

18
 Now let’s consider a Club, since pairs that start with a Club-card total 15, not 14. If you
spot the Six of Clubs, you know a Heart will follow. And since a Club is involved, you
subtract the glimpsed card from 15. 15-6=9. The Nine of Hearts follows the Six of Clubs.

2. All suits run in order, four cards apart. If you ever get stuck on a card, you can always
calculate its position based on the cards before and after.

One example should suffice: if you can’t remember the stack number of the Three of
Hearts (9), you can simply think back to the position of the Two of Hearts (5), and add four.
Red cards are in ascending order and black cards are in descending order, but all cards run
in numerical order, four cards apart.

3. All mates are two cards apart. This was already mentioned, but I’m told by editors and early
adopters that this is a helpful crutch to keep in mind.

Let’s consider the red Twos. If you can’t remember the position of the Two of Diamonds,
perhaps you can remember the position of its mate, the Two of Hearts. If you remember that
the Two of Hearts falls fifth, you can easily calculate that its mate, the Two of Diamonds,
is two cards away, at the seventh position. As ever, remember that the cards are in CHaSeD
order so you can always determine which one comes first. Hearts before Diamonds, Spades
before Clubs.

Getting into Particle Stack

You can get into Particle Stack easily from new deck order, although a minor adjustment is
likely necessary when you open a new deck of cards. New deck order can vary from brand to
brand, but the most standardized order does require an adjustment.

The starting order must be:

AH-KH
KS-AS
AD-KD
KC-AC

This is the order for the Particle Packs we make available. If this isn’t the starting order of your
deck, you must simply reverse count the Clubs and Diamonds, and situate the suits in Hearts,
Spades, Diamonds, Clubs order. This is the new deck order required for the Particle Stack.
To get into the Particle Stack, you must do two out-faros. This means you cut at the Ace of
Spades and weave the cards perfectly so that the Ace of Hearts remains on the top and the Ace
of Clubs remains on the bottom (Photo 1).

Now do one more perfect out-faro; this time you cut at the King of Diamonds (Photo 2). That’s
it. Done. No memorized deck (not even Si Stebbins) offers such a convenient pathway into stack.

There’s another hidden advantage that isn’t obvious at first blush. When I used to put a shuffled

19
 1 2

deck into Aronson Stack, I would often time myself, just to see how fast I could do it. It’s an
annoying process; you’re thinking and culling and making piles. Particularly for the first half
of the deck, it’s slow going. When there are fewer cards left to sort, it goes quicker.

With the Particle Stack, it takes me half the time because I don’t sort the cards directly into the
Particle Stack. I sort them into the new deck order outlined above. It takes almost no thought
at all to pull out cards by suit and then quickly put them in Ace to King and King to Ace order.
Then I can perform the two faro shuffles required…and the cards are in order.

Particle Stack Subtleties

If the opportunity arises where you need to show the Particle Stack face up, here are two
subtleties to help mask any apparent order.

Rather than spread the deck face up on the table, when possible, I prefer to lay down a spread in
clumps of cards. To begin, cut about five or so cards from bottom to top, just so the Aces aren’t
on the extreme edges of the spread. For the spreading sequence, I begin with the pack face
down in dealer’s grip and thumb over five to ten cards. I turn the cards over end for end in their
spread condition and table them to the right. I then take another spread of five to ten cards
and turn it end for end, depositing it somewhat overlapping the tabled cards so that the spread
continues toward my left. These actions are repeated throughout the deck, and the result is a
face-up spread that conceals small groups of cards and obscures some cards more than others
(Photos 1-3, next page). In this way, the patterns of the Particle Stack are less discernible.12
Some further tips on this. When the situation isn’t quite right for this lay-down process, you
can still disrupt a more standard ribbon spread. When I do ribbon spreads, I do them from left
to right, so the numbers are upside down to the spectators. And rather than spreading so the
entire pack is visible, consider dribbling the cards, as shown in Photo 4. Right after the ribbon
spread, you can tap the spread in the two vulnerable areas—the Sevens near the center and the
interlaced Aces and Kings near the ends—by brushing your first finger over these areas, subtly
tucking these cards under those around them, so they’re less prominent. Photo 5 shows what a
spread (not a dribble, but just a tabled spread) looks like before this tapping action, and Photo
6 shows what it looks like afterward.

12. Thanks to Andi Gladwin for initially suggesting this simple but useful dodge, which I now use often.
20
 1 2

3 4

5 6

The other subtlety is more psychological in nature. I sometimes hand the Particle Stack to a
spectator to look through, but always with a request or task. Instead of saying, “Please look
through the deck and verify it’s shuffled,” consider something like, “As you look through those
cards, can you verify for the people who can’t see that the cards aren’t separated by color or
suit?” That’s an easy thing to check; the cards aren’t separated that way. Or you might ask
someone to remove the four Eights or the two red Nines. If they have a reason to spread
through the deck or look through the cards face up on the table, they won’t be as attuned to the
patterns of the Particle Stack.

21
 Putting in
“The Work”
After this section, I’ll refer to this memorized deck as the Particle System, since most
of the effects rely as much on the “work” (breathers, short card, marked cards) as
they will on the arrangement of the cards.

A critical point that is easy to overlook so early on: the marked cards, the breather,
and the short card are helpful tools even after you’ve destroyed your stack. So,
while these elements may seem like an added hassle, I think of them as an added
advantage, even after the cards have been shuffled.

Marked Cards
I use marked Mandolin backs. The design isn’t stunning; it’s neutral. The back
design looks enough like a standard back design that the cards won’t distract from
the performance. I find these markings are ideal. In tandem with the release of
this book, we’re making available the Particle Pack, which is a Mandolin marked
deck that comes in the precise new-deck-order sequence that allows you to get
into the Particle System most easily. These decks also contain several other hidden
features—none of them strictly necessary but all of them helpful—and I’ll mention
these features shortly.

You can find other marked decks that are reasonably priced, with markings that are
well hidden, and large enough to be observed in all lighting conditions. Seek out
markings that are visible near the sides of the back designs. Price need not be a
barrier for the tremendous advantages and conveniences of working with a marked
pack. While I don’t always use a marked pack, I do most of the time. Shhhh.

One Short Card

Now let’s create the easiest pathway to get back to what I call stack origin. In
memorized deck magic, you’re often left with a random card on top; the cards are
still in memorized order, but the first card isn’t on top. It’s usually necessary to
begin in stack origin, and a short card is the easiest way to get back there without
having to look.
22
 1 2

I own an old, heavy, card cutter and corner rounder, and so I cut my Ace of Clubs on the same
machine a Chicago cheater used a century ago13 (Photo 1). They also sell more modern cutters
and corner rounders; here’s a set that works great (Photo 2). When I’m on the road, I cut the
card with scissors.

You should cut the Ace of Clubs down its sides, not the end. You should also use a scallop short,
which means trimming the length of the card but leaving its corners intact. Photos 3 & 4 show
an extremely exaggerated view, so you can understand the endpoints and the curve. In practice,
you’ll cut only a sliver of card from each side.

3 4

You should trim both sides of the card fractionally because, with a scallop short, the corners
will often keep the card in perfect alignment, which means that you may not even feel the short
card on one side. If you trim both sides, you’ll always be able to riffle to it.

You might be curious as to why we trim the sides of the cards instead of the end. The reason is
that most often, you’ll be cutting the pack back to stack origin openly, between tricks. Riffling
up the back of the deck looks odd—like you’re doing a bad get-ready for a classic pass. But

13. I bought this cherished piece from the legendary Jay Marshall.

23
 if you’re holding the pack in dealer’s grip,
you can openly riffle down the side of the
pack with your left thumb until you feel the
“click” of the short card (Photo 5). You can
cut at this point to return to stack origin.
I also find trimming the sides of the deck
doesn’t affect the accuracy of a faro shuffle,
in case you wish to do faro-work at some
point in your set.

Breather Cards
We’re going to add bottom-cutting breather cards14 at positions 10, 20, 30, and 40.15 To do this,
hold the first card—the Jack of Spades—face down. Place your right thumb near the center
of the card, with your other fingers curled beneath (Photo 6). Firmly pull toward one of the
corners, adding a pronounced bow in the card at this corner (Photo 7). Note that you’re not
creasing or folding the card at any point; you’re just putting an almost indiscernible bend in the
card. Now repeat this action with the other three corners. This creates four slight bends in the
card, while the very center area of the face of the card remains unbent.

6 7

14. We have Dai Vernon to thank for introducing the breather crimp to the magic community. Vernon adapted this
idea from the cheating world. See Minch, Stephen, The Vernon Chronicles: Volume One, 1987, p. 96.
15. I was surprised to learn that I wasn’t the first to apply reverse-breathers to these exact intervals in a memorized
deck. I wish to acknowledge that Danny Crauwels, who performs under the stage name of “Maigret,” developed
his system in which reverse-breathers are placed at these intervals in C-System, 2019. I was unaware of his system
when I integrated “X-Ray” into my own stack, but his system is interesting in that he uses a total of ten tactile
keys to locate named cards.

24
If you replace the Jack of Spades in the tenth position in the stack, and then try to cut a small
packet, you’ll always cut with the Jack of Spades on the face—the “bottom” part of the spread.
This is why it’s called a bottom-cutting breather.

Repeat this process with the Nine of Clubs (20), Six of Spades (30), and Four of Clubs (40).

Super Breather
I do one trick that requires an additional, different kind of breather card that I devised just for
this purpose. It requires putting a bend in the bottom card, the Ace of Clubs. I will say that
this one trick is often the strongest thing that I do with playing cards: a spectator thinks of and
names any card in the deck and she cuts to it. If you wish to perform this trick (explained in
“Three Act Structure,” on p. 259), you’ll need to learn and implement the super breather.

In summary, I’ve realized that it’s manageable to have breathers of two different strengths: one
that you can cut to easily, and another one that a participant can cut to easily. A breather crimp
as described above (basically an “X” crimp across a card), can be applied lightly enough that it
isn’t easily seen on the side of the pack yet it can be cut to easily if you know it’s there. In other
words, if you, the magician, cut “around” ten cards with a light grip, you’ll reliably cut at Jack
of Spades breather. Easy.

What I call a super breather is a card that has a more pronounced bow in it and is, tactilely
speaking, a bigger target. This is a card that a participant can reliably cut to. Obviously, a
participant isn’t trying to cut to any particular place or card, so this card has to blend in with
the other cards yet be very, very easy to cut to even to someone who isn’t trying to cut at a
particular place.

I have developed just such a card. To put in the work we’ll put in a different kind of breather to
the “X” configuration you’re used to, and we’ll put firmer crimps in the card.

Put in two downward crimps to the areas shown in Photo 8. To do this, pinch the face-down
Ace of Clubs with the thumb on top and fingered below, about half an inch from one end
on the left side (Photo 9). Now wipe across the card firmly several times, creating a concave

8 9

25
 trough along the end of the card (Photo
10). Now repeat this action on the other
end. When you’re done the ends of the
card will curl up slightly, which is only
visible from up close, staring directly at
the side of the card (Photo 11). In the
center of the pack this card is hard to
see, but a small gap may be visible upon
very, very close inspection (Photo 12).
By situating this card on the face of the
pack whenever you begin a trick, this
10
small gap is indetectable. Yet you’ll find
that if you centralize this card and cut
holding the cards at the ends, without
even trying you’ll cut right to it, and so
will participants.

When I’ve given lectures to magicians on

the Particle System, a common question
is how I differentiate the “strength” of
a normal breather and a super breather.
I suggest putting about twice as much
force in a super breather as a “normal”
breather.
11
There’s another interesting feature of
the super breather: it can be both a top
and bottom-cutting card (sometimes
referred to as a reverse-cutting breather).
In a traditional breather card (with an
“X” formation) the card will either cut to
the face of the packet you’re lifting or on
top of the lower packet. This depends, of
course, on whether you put “the work” in
face up or face down. But an interesting
feature of the super breather is that you
can cut this card to either place, as you
like.
12
If you cut from the ends, the card will
cling to the face of the cut-off packet;
this is a bottom-cutting breather. No
surprises there. But if you cut from the sides of the deck and lift gently, you’ll leave the super
breather on top of the lower packet: a top-cutting breather. This is because the center of Ace of
Clubs rests lower than the sides, creating a gap above the card. If you approach the deck with your
cutting hand and push down first, and then gently lift the packet from the sides, you’ll reliably

26
cut above the Ace of Clubs (Photo 13).
Pushing down and then releasing pressure
causes air to refill above the super breather
in the natural gap created by the crimps,
and there’s a springiness to this action that
helps you cut right above this card. Cutting
above the Ace of Clubs requires a lighter
touch and isn’t something a participant can
do reliably. But it is a useful feature of the
super breather to keep in mind.
13

Memorized Deck Maintenance

The Particle System requires a bit of care and maintenance. The short card and marked deck
don’t require tune-ups, but the breather cards do. I find that for every two hours of work with
the Particle System, I have to quickly run my fingers through the breathers to strengthen their
bends. This takes less than sixty seconds in total. I don’t see this as much of an issue. I reinforce
the super breather before every show if possible, because I want to be certain that when a
participant thinks of and cuts the cards, she’ll definitely cut to her own card. This moment is
worth the effort to me.

A bigger issue is certain card moves that counteract the breathers. I refrain from springing the
cards from hand to hand because of the bow this adds to the deck. And painfully, we can’t use
the in-the-hands false riffle shuffles that have become trendy utilities in the last decade. The
Truffle Shuffle, the Heinstein Shuffle, and the Hollingworth Shuffle all rely on a tense bowing
action as the cards are riffled off the thumbs. You can use these shuffles, but I find it makes the
breathers less reliable. And it reduces the life of the cards in general. I treat the Particle System
gently, and get long use out of each prepared deck.

But let’s not mourn the loss of this particular family of false shuffles and cuts. In addition to
any favorites you already have, in the next section I’ll share with you a selection of little-known
alternatives that, I think, are ideal for use in the Particle System.

The Particle Pack

I’m delighted that in conjunction with the release of this book, we’ve produced The Particle
Pack, which is a special edition of the Mandolin Deck optimized for the Particle System. It’s
not at all necessary to use this deck within the system; it’s not even essential to use a marked
pack at all. But the Particle Pack offers four distinct advantages.

27
 First, the cards come in the precise new deck order required to get into the stack. Two out-
faros and you’re in business.

Second, the cards are marked with a subtle but extremely readable marking system. Of all the
marked packs I’ve encountered, this is the best balance for me: easy to read, yet extremely well
hidden.

Third, I’ve built in four card revelations to the card box and a few of the faces. If any of these
four cards are named during a think-a-card routine, you have a devastating revelation at your
fingertips with no additional thought or sleight-of-hand.

Finally, the deck has been designed with a formal performance in mind. Although the deck is
sealed in plastic, the pack isn’t sealed. This allows you to secretly open the pack in advance, and
put the work in the cards (breathers and short card...and anything else you’d like to prepare).
In a moment I’ll explain how to disguise the pack as a sealed and plastic-wrapped deck of cards
that you can open in front of an audience during a show. This feature is particularly helpful if
you intend to end with the cards in new deck order. By beginning with a supposedly sealed, new
deck and then displaying all the cards in perfect order, you allow for a theatrically satisfying,
circular ending. You end just as you begin: with the cards in perfect order.

The Particle Pack is widely available and at reasonable pricing in case you prefer the conveniences
that it affords.

Getting into Particle Stack from the Particle Pack

As mentioned, if you take the cards from the box and remove the Jokers and advertising cards,
you simply give the deck two out-faro shuffles and you’ll be in Particle Stack.

Reading the Marks

The marks on Mandolin cards are situated in the upper left and lower right corners, making
them ideal to read, even from a spread. Photo 1 shows the markings on the Ace of Hearts: A
for Ace and H for Hearts. Photo 2 shows the markings for the Seven of Spades.

1 2

28
The Revelations Built into the Particle Pack
For the four card revelations built into the Particle Pack, I chose four cards that are situated in
somewhat cumbersome positions in the stack. These are the cards (in any stack) that you would
be most likely to “miss” on with estimation. I explore these revelations in the Comments after
the “Jazzing” section on p. 90.

How to Reseal the Particle Pack

I developed this strategy because I wanted the flexibility to start a parlor performance with a
supposedly new, sealed deck of cards, which I could open in front of an audience. While a few
stacks offer a way to get into the stack from new deck order, none of them offer a way to include
extensive (and, as I keep pointing out, highly advantageous) work into the deck.

Here’s how to get into the deck, put the work in, and then seal everything back up.

For starters, pull the plastic-string tab

to tear open the plastic wrapping on the
deck. You can discard the wrapping that
covers the flap end of the box. Now slide
the remaining plastic sleeve from the box,
taking care not to crease or crinkle the
plastic (Photo 3). Now you can remove
the cards from the box and perform all the
necessary work required. I prefer to leave
the cards in new deck order, yet still add in
the breathers to the Jack of Spades, Nine
3
of Clubs, Six of Spades, and Four of Clubs
and trim the sides of the Ace of Clubs as
already described. If you wish, you can
put the cards into Particle Stack, but I prefer the authenticity of being able to show the cards
in new deck order, and then doing two out-faros to get into position.

Replace the Jokers into the deck. Now place the cards back into the card case. If you wish to
apply a sticker to seal the pack, you can do so. I don’t feel this is necessary, and opening the seal
during a show only slows things down.

Now for the cellophane. You’ll replace the

wrapper sleeve back onto the deck, but
upside down. That is, you’ll replace the
sealed end over the opening of the box.
To do this quickly and with a minimum
of hassle, place two “guide” cards of any
kind above and below the card box so that
the cards protrude beyond the ends of the
box (Photo 4). If no additional playing
cards are handy, two credit cards from your
4
wallet work just fine. It’s an easy matter to

29
 5 6

slide the sleeve into position, first over the two guide cards and then aligned over the sealed
opening of the card box (Photos 5 & 6).

When you begin a performance, you have only to protect the small surface area of the box
not encased in plastic at the bottom of the box. Even under fairly close scrutiny, if you hold
the deck by the bottom of the box the cards will pass as sealed, and the plastic wrapping will
glisten just like it’s supposed to under the stage lights.

To open the deck, you don’t have a plastic pull

string. Instead, just act as if you’re gently
breaking the plastic between the thumbs of
each hand. Then act as if you’re peeling the
plastic off the deck, and slide the sleeve off
the top (Photo 7). Crumple this plastic and
toss it to the floor or in your pocket. Then
call attention to the seal before you pop it
open. Remove the cards from the case and
spread them face up to call attention to the
new deck order of the cards, explaining
what this is if you feel it’s required. Discard 7
the excess cards from the pack and move
directly into your performance.

30
False Shuffles
and Cuts
This is neither the time nor place for a lengthy dissertation on false cuts and
shuffles. More good options already exist than we will ever need. Instead,
I’ll focus on several false shuffles and cuts you haven’t seen elsewhere, which
you might find useful. I close out this chapter with an essay that details
three strategies to help an audience remember that the deck was thoroughly
shuffled.

The Chili Shuffle

I developed this shuffle in my teens and have used it as my primary false shuffle ever since.
I can’t claim total originality to it because it’s based on the same idea as most other false
overhand shuffles. But I call it the Chili Shuffle because in the Midwest of the United States,
where I grew up, nearly every family makes “their own” pot of chili. The recipe for the thick
soup is similar from family to family and town to town, but each family has its own version: a
little more chili powder, an extra cup of beans, a secret ingredient (it’s always cinnamon, and
every family thinks their family thought of it).

The Chili Shuffle is my particular combination of features for an in-the-hands false overhand
shuffle. This particular recipe—sorry, handling—has the benefit of being entirely breakless.
Usually a jog (or two or three) is held. Here there are no awkward runs of single cards. It’s also
quite easy to master. Best of all, the shuffle can and should be done face up. I know of no other
false overhand shuffle that can be repeated face up without fear of over-exposing the same face
cards.

The Chili Shuffle is, at its essence, a series of single cuts. But the cut-off packets are of different
sizes, and the cards are held in overhand shuffle position, so it looks very much like an overhand
shuffle. In a real shuffle, the receiving hand’s pile would start small and get bigger, while the
throwing hand’s pile would get progressively smaller. So we’ll simulate exactly that.

31
 1 2

3 4

5 6

Begin with the cards held face up in the left hand, in readiness for an overhand shuffle; the cards
are held face up at a forty-five-degree angle with the left thumb placed on the inner edge of
the deck and the left second, third, and fourth fingers extended on the opposite end of the deck
(Photo 1). Note that the left first finger is curled gently on the upper edge of the deck. The
Ace of Clubs, the face card of the Particle Stack, is on the face of the deck—but don’t worry.
This card won’t return to the face; the Chili Shuffle results in a simple cut of the cards. So at
any point, when you’re done shuffling, the cards are turned face down and you can cut at the
scallop-shorted Ace of Clubs to return to stack origin.

32
To start, take a chop of about ten cards from the face of the deck into the right hand (Photo 2).
The cards are not thrown from one hand to another, but rather smeared from the face of the
deck with the right thumb (Photo 3). The right thumb should apply force to the face of the deck
as the left third, fourth, and fifth fingers ease their grip. This is coupled with the right thumb
applying pressure to the bottom edge of the deck as the right and left hands separate. The right
hand should be holding the remaining cards in the same grip as before.

In a continuing action, as in a real overhand shuffle, the right hand returns to the left. The right
second, third, and fourth fingers allow the original chop packet to join the back of the left-hand
packet (Photo 4). The moment all the cards coalesce, the left thumb peels another chop of cards
from the face of the pack, but this chop is twice the size of the previous one (Photo 5). Note
that the right thumb and right fingers help flare the deck to gain separation for each chop taken
(Photo 6). The deck is supposed to look messy as the hands come together; it looks this messy
during a real overhand shuffle.

The pattern is continued. Each time the hands come together, the left fingers deposit cards at
the back of the deck as the left thumb peels an entirely new packet of greater size into the left
hand. This should be done with moderate force; there is an audible clack when the hands come
together, which gives off the inimitable sound of cards being mixed.

7 8

9 10

33
 Exactly how many chops you take and how many cards you take in each one is up to you. I find
that I go for five chopping actions. The first and last ones are just a few cards, while the middle
chops are bigger packets (Photos 7-10, previous page). That tends to be exactly the way most
people really shuffle in this style. You’ll notice a total randomness to the face card, which adds
to the deceptiveness of the shuffle.

The Chili Shuffle is breakless and thoughtless. Other shuffles rely on running, say, five cards,
then throwing a jog, and then re-running those five cards. Not only can that look formulaic,
but it also requires concentration and counting. I can do this shuffle without any fear of error
or losing my place and without ever looking at my hands. That’s as important as the technique
itself. When I’ve done it once or twice, I’ll turn the deck face down and conclude with a legitimate
cut (to the short card).

The Group Shuffle

While I might use the Chili Shuffle fifteen
times in the course of a short set with the
Particle System, I would only use the Group
Shuffle once. It’s as much a presentation as
it is a shuffle. The process is interesting and
memorable. It’s funny when a participant
gets it right and funnier when they get it
wrong.

The Group Shuffle is, in essence, a push-

through shuffle in which you riffle half the
cards and the participant riffles the other 1

half.

To begin, cut off about twenty cards with

your right hand. Due to the breather crimp
at position 20 (the Nine of Clubs), this is
automatic.

Hand this upper portion to a participant and

instruct her to hold the cards in her left hand
with the thumb on top and fingers below, as
you hold your thirty-two cards in the same
way. Say, “I’ve created my own kind of shuffle 2
and I’ll teach it to you now. You take half the
cards and I take half. Now do as I do.” Place
your right thumb on top of the outer end of
your packet, with your right fingers beneath. Gently riffle upward on your packet, letting each
card flick off your right fingertips (Photo 1). Ask the participant to do the same.

34
 3 4

“The concept,” you explain, “is that each of us will be one hand in a shuffle. If we put our hands together,
the cards will mix but neither of us can control the order of the cards.” Instruct the participant to
extend her hand with her packet as you do the same.

While it’s true that you cannot control the order of the cards when two people are riffling
simultaneously, you can control which cards fall first and last. Since you have more cards than
the participant, as you extend your hands, begin to riffle your packet (Photo 2). Allow the
participant to interweave her cards into yours, but hold back a portion of your packet so that at
least one of your cards falls last (Photo 3).

Take back all the cards in this elongated position and allow the spectators to see clearly that
the cards are mixed (Photo 4). As magicians, we understand that cards aren’t really mixed until
a deck is entirely squared. But laypeople don’t know about pullout and push-through shuffles.
This elongated packet is shuffled to a lay audience. The shuffle is over and the cards are mixed.

After a moment of focus, relax your body and continue with your presentation. Under cover of
this offbeat, strip out the two packets as follows. Apparently push the two packets square, but
do so at an angle (Photos 5-7). These actions are similar to that of a Diagonal Palm Shift. By
applying pressure to the outer left corner, the outer packet is pushed into the inner packet at an
angle. With the assistance of the right little finger, you can jog the outer (original top portion

5 6

35
 7 8

of the deck) packet to the right, where it

remains concealed from above by the right
hand (Photo 8).

Move your left hand under the deck and

grasp the right-jogged packet in a straddle
grip, with your left finger at the outer end
and your left little finger at the inner end.
Twist the packets away from each other,
stripping the right-jogged packet free from
the other cards (Photo 9).
9

In a continuing action, replace these cards

on top of the cards held in the right hand.
This replaces the upper portion of the deck back on top. Now the cards are back in order, in
stack origin.

We’ll put the Group Shuffle to use in “The Curious Incident” on p. 259.

Zero Gravity Shuffle

Hidden away in Boris Wild’s Transparency is a lovely false shuffle that I haven’t seen anyone
other than Boris use, and it’s the best of its kind.16 Boris gets into the shuffle with a false cut
sequence that I don’t care for, and he handles the shuffle differently, but the pivotal aspect of
his sleight is simulating a perfect weave with a plunger principle of a packet of cards. I’ve
developed a way to simulate the exact actions of a faro shuffle and take full advantage of Boris’
terrific subtlety. As is my preference, this technique is soft, won’t disturb or bow the pack, and
can be done without looking at your hands.

16. See Wild, Boris, The Gravity Shuffle, Transparency, 2012, p. 117. There are two other false faro shuffles worthy
of your attention, but each has a limitation. William Eston’s False Faro appeared in my Talk About Tricks column
in MAGIC Magazine, but this move requires your focus and has angle issues. Homer Liwag’s terrific False Faro is
a great option, too, but as Mike Close has observed of the move, this move is more of an auditory illusion than a
visual one. The Zero Gravity Shuffle has the advantage that it looks indistinguishable from a faro shuffle.
36
 1 2

3 4

With the pack held in left-hand dealer’s grip, insert your left little finger just beneath the
halfway point in the pack. Precisely where you insert your little finger isn’t critical, but twenty
cards or so from the bottom of the deck is ideal.

Grasp about twenty cards just above the break at the back end between your right thumb and
middle finger (Photo 1). Move the left hand forward and away from the right hand, curling the
left thumb and first, second, and third finger pads on top of the deck so that you can extract
about the top ten cards of the pack along with the cards beneath the left little finger (Photo 2).
The right hand remains stationary with its packet from the center of the deck. As the hands
clear each other, maintain the break with the left little finger.

Turn the right packet perpendicular to the floor and tap its outer end against the inner end
of the cards held in the left hand (Photo 3). If done smoothly, this should exactly simulate
the actions leading up to a faro shuffle, or at least a faro in which you’re not concerned with a
perfect split of twenty-six cards.

Position your right first finger pad just over the edge of the outer right corner of the right-
hand packet (Photo 4). Now insert this corner into the break in the left hand’s cards but allow
the first finger pad to overlap on top of the left packet (Photo 5, next page).

37
 5 6

7 8

Now for some acting. Since there’s no friction

between the packets (because they aren’t
really woven), you have to simulate it. Swivel
the packets so the sides are aligned (Photo
6). Simulate the action of faroing in at the
corner and then pushing the entire ends into
each other. Allow the right packet to move
into the break for about half an inch.

The following action is what makes this

entire sequence so deceptive. As you move the 9
faces of the elongated packet up and toward
the spectators, apply pressure between your
hands on the cards. Push upward on the right
packet slowly, as if you’re pushing one woven packet into another. Naturally, the right hand’s
cards will create friction against the cards immediately below and above them. Like the plunger
principle, this will cause seven or eight cards on either side of the packet to protrude from the
upper end of the elongated pack (Photo 7). From the extreme left side, this doesn’t look great
(Photo 8). But from the front, it looks exactly like a real faro shuffle (Photo 9).

Extend your right fingers onto the outer ends of the protruding cards and slowly, with some
feigned resistance, push these cards square. This completes the shuffling action.
38
 True False Cut (Max Lukian)
Max Lukian discovered a terrific false cut you can perform within the Particle System that
looks exactly like four real cuts. The reason it looks so good is that it is four real cuts. He
observed that with the four breather cards positioned in the deck, you’re always in position to
cut legitimately at each breather in sequence, then add any other false shuffle you like, and end
by cutting again at each breather in sequence to restore the stack.

Let’s go over this more carefully because there are several ways to use the True False Cut.
Cut the deck at the first breather and drop this ten-card packet onto the table. You can check
each cut by observing the marking on the new top card of the left hand’s packet each time.
Immediately cut off the next ten cards by cutting at the Nine of Clubs breather (20). Drop
this squarely onto the ten cards onto the table. Continue without pausing, cutting at the Six of
Spades breather (30) and dropping this packet onto the tabled cards. Cut the cards once more
at the Four of Clubs (40), and drop this packet onto the tabled cards. Conclude by dropping all
twelve of the remaining cards on top of the tabled pile.

The cards are now divided into five blocks: 41-52 on top, then 31-40, 21-30, 11-20, and 1-10.
Restoring the order of the pack is as simple as reversing the order of these five blocks. To do
this, place the cards back in your left hand and riffle your thumb along the side of the pack until
you feel the shorted Ace of Clubs (and if you use the super breather on this card, you can also
just cut to it). Cut the deck at this point, dropping the cut-off packet onto the table. From here,
cut at each breather card in order, and drop each packet back onto the tabled portion.

I’ve described the move from the hands to the table, but it’s just as convincing if you do it
entirely on your working surface, cutting the cards from one place to another. This hands-off
feel is particularly deceptive for magicians trying to follow a break or jog.

The sneakiest use of the True False Cut is to do the first half of it before you begin a performance.
As Max pointed out to me, the deck looks more random in this order anyway; there are no Aces
or Kings on top and bottom, and the top and bottom six or seven cards can be shown fairly. You
can do an array of false cuts and shuffles with the deck in this position. Then, perhaps while
asking someone to think of a card, you can casually cut the deck legitimately four times. Even
magicians are likely to be thrown by four straight, breakless cuts.

False False Shuffle (Lew Brooks)

We just learned a real false cut; the cuts are real, but doing them twice cancels everything out.
This is related; it’s a real shuffle, done twice. Lew Brooks published this idea twenty years ago,
and I’ve never seen anyone use it.17 It’s great, and it works particularly well in the Particle
System.

To see the idea for yourself, just follow along. With the deck in face-down overhand shuffle
position, run four cards singly from the face of the deck into your hand and then throw the rest

17. See Brooks, Lew, “False False Shuffle,” Stack Attack, 1998, p.5.
39
 on top. Now run three cards singly and again throw the deck on top. Now take two cards singly
and throw. Finally, take a single card and throw on top.

Those shuffles are real; they change the order of the deck. But we’ll unwind that shuffle and
return everything back to normal by doing the same actions in reverse order: one, two, three,
and four. With the cards held in face-up overhand shuffle position, run one card and throw, then
two and throw, then three and throw, and then four and throw. The pack is back in the Particle
Stack.

You wouldn’t perform both of these actions in quick succession. Ideally you would perform one
sequence before you begin a performance. Then you can legitimately overhand shuffle the cards
in a remembered sequence that feels natural to you. Maybe it’s two, three, two, three, or maybe
it’s as described: one, two, three, and four. By only performing half the False False Shuffle in
performance, you make your false shuffles entirely real.

The Undo Cut18 (Andi Gladwin)

If you have use of a table, I think this is, perhaps, the finest false cut I’ve encountered; it’s just
the right mix of casual and chaotic, and is described with permission from its creator, Andi
Gladwin.

Begin with the pack held face down in right-hand end grip. Swing cut over a third of the pack
into the left hand, and then swing cut another third on top, maintaining a break between the
packets with the left little finger (Photo 1). Replace the final, bottom third of the deck on top
of the other cards in the left hand but keep a left third-finger break beneath this packet (Photo
2). It feels odd to maintain two breaks, but you’ll only hold this position for a few seconds. Tilt
the right side of the deck downward, toward the floor, to help conceal the breaks. If possible,
hold this position for a period of time while you talk or interact with the spectators.

1 2

18. See Gladwin, Andi, The Undo Cut, The Boy Who Cried Magic, 2020, p. 109. Andi credits Denis Behr for
the initial cutting sequence, and Benjamin Earl and Dave Davies for subtleties in the mechanics. The particular
version I use was devised by Luke Jermay.

40
 3 4

5 6

When you’re ready to undo this cutting

sequence, spread the upper packet between your
hands, flattening this upper third-finger break
as you come to it. Rather than a break between
these upper two packets, there is now just a
visual space, a little less than an inch, between
this spread upper packet, and the loosely-squared
lower two packets (Photo 3). The left fourth-
finger break is still maintained, and concealed
under the spread of cards. Grasp the upper half
of the spread cards in your right hand, and pin 7
in place the lower half of the spread cards with
your left thumb (Photo 4). In quick succession
you’ll toss all the spread cards in the left hand
to the table in a spread condition (Photo 5), and then a split second later, toss all the cards in
the right hand on top, in a continuation of the spread (Photo 6). While this looks messy, you’ve
actually done very little. The bottom third of the deck is now on the table. The middle third is
above the break in your left hand, and the top third is below the break in your left hand.

You’ll repeat this same tossing action with the two packets in the left hand. That is, spread the
cards above the break, and take the top half of them in the right hand (Photo 7). Toss the spread

41
 8 9

10 11

cards in the left hand onto the table, on top

of and to the left of the cards already there
(Photo 8). A moment later, toss the right-
hand spread on top of everything (Photo 9).

You have just one packet remaining in your

left hand, and this is the original top third
of the deck. Spread this packet between your
hands and take the upper half in the right
hand. Toss the left-hand cards first, then the
right. The messy spread on the table was 12
made of six little, tossed packets, but the
order of the cards has not been changed.

If you alternate between outjogging and injogging the packets on the table as you toss them,
you can create an ideal visual picture (this is an idea Andi adapted from Ben Earl and Dave
Davies). With this layout, the spectators can see, apparently, each toss differentiated from the
cards above it (Photo 10). You can now square these cards in two parts: first by pushing the
outjogged and injogged packets together (Photo 11), and then by collecting the spread from
left to right (Photo 12).

42
Andi Gladwin observed that you can do the Undo Cut face up in the Particle Stack, particularly
if you tilt the face-up deck toward yourself during the preliminary cutting phase. The order
looks haphazard as you toss the packets to the table.

We think of false shuffles as distinctly different from false cuts, but I think spectators perceive
these lines as more blurred than we do. The Undo Cut has the feel of a false shuffle, and when
combined with the Chili Shuffle, and the Ose Trilogy I’m about to describe, I think the illusion
of total disorder is complete.

Ose Trilogy19
The Jay Ose False Cut20 is a useful tool for many of the same reasons I mention about the
Chili Shuffle: you can do it without looking or thinking about it. It’s mechanically simple yet it
deceives the eye. In short, you cut a third of the deck to the table to your left, another third in
the middle, and the bottom third to your right. You then collect the packets from left to right:
top back on top, middle back in the middle, bottom on the bottom. It’s likely you already use
this cut. I do.

If we think critically about the move, it suffers from just one flaw: it’s perhaps too linear. The
cards are laid down in a row and picked up in that same row. I don’t think spectators follow the
cut, but I’m also quite sure the cut won’t survive repeated viewings or close analysis.

What follows is a cutting sequence that would withstand closer scrutiny. My objective was
simple: to cut cards to the table in order but pick them up in a seemingly random fashion.

The Laydown
We’ll use four packets instead of three, which provides a better rhythm and seemingly more
“shuffling.” The laydown is always the same, but I’ll offer three different pickup procedures
that you can use interchangeably. Each one has a decidedly different feel, which gives you some
diversity for memorized deck work.

Begin with the pack held face up in right-

hand end grip. If you’re using the Particle
System, it’s best not to be in stack origin.
Have any other card on the face. Later we’ll
discuss entirely face-down variations.

With your right first finger, swing cut the

top three-quarters of the cards toward the
waiting left hand (Photo 1). But rather than
accepting the upper packet into the left
hand as you would with a normal swing
1 cut, take the bottom quarter of the deck
instead (Photo 2).

19. Originally published in my Linking Ring Parade. See The Linking Ring, May 2010, p. 97.
20. See Lorayne, Harry, Ose’s Cut, Close-up Card Magic, 1962, p. 93.
43
 2 3

4 5

6 7

Move toward the table with the cards in the left hand, flopping them face down onto the table
to your left (Photo 3). This is the top quarter of the deck, all the way to the left.

In a continuing action, swing cut the top quarter of the deck with your right first finger.
Return to the deck with your left hand, but this time take the top quarter off the face of the
pack, as in a standard swing cut (Photo 4). Flop this packet face down onto the table to the right
of the first packet.

44
As the left hand tables this packet, the right first finger breaks the remaining cards in half, in
preparation for yet another swing cut (Photo 5). Approach the pack with the left hand and take
the lower packet (Photo 6). This time, both
the left hand and the right hand turn their
packets face down and replace them onto the
table, with the left hand’s packet going to the
right of the two tabled packets (Photo 7), and
the right hand’s packet going to the right of
everything (Photo 8). The last two packets are
placed on the table at the same time.

From left to right, the order of the packets is

1, 4, 2, 3. That is, the top of the deck, packet 1,
is to your left, and the very bottom of the deck,
packet 4, is second from the left. 8

With a casual attitude, the small discrepancy

of receiving cards from the bottom or top of
the right hand’s packets will go unnoticed; it
simply appears as though the cards have been
cut to the table from left to right. Now it’s time
to pick them up. Here are three alternatives.

Basic Pickup
You’ll do this pickup entirely with your left
hand. From above, grasp the leftmost packet
between the left thumb and fingers, and
9
leapfrog over packet 4, dropping this packet
on top of packet 2 (Photo 8). You have just
combined packets 1 and 2—roughly the top
of the deck. Now pick up this combined packet
in a continuing action and drop it on top of
packet 3 to the right (Photo 9). In a continuing
action, pick up everything and double back to
drop everything on top of packet 4 (Photo 10).
The pack has been restored.

Double Pickup
This is a two-handed assembly of the packets
that accomplishes the same thing as the basic 10
pickup, but in different steps. Begin with the
same laydown: 1,4,2,3.

With your left hand, pick up packet 1, the leftmost packet, and drop it on top of packet 2, second
from the right. Then, with your right hand pick up packet 3 on the far right side and drop it on
packet 4 (Photo 11, next page). You’ll have to cross your right hand over your left to do this in
rapid succession, which helps with the haphazard appearance of the sequence.

45
 11 12

To conclude, pick up the combined 1 / 2

packet with your left hand and drop it on
top of the combined 3 / 4 packet to its
immediate left (Photo 12).

The Toss21
This is a two-handed “toss” version. It
starts the same with the deck tabled in
The Laydown as already described: 1,4,2,3.
Simultaneously grasp packet 1 with your
left hand and packet 2 with your right hand. 13
The fingers grasp each packet at the outer
end and the thumbs brace the packets at the
inner end. Pick up the packets in each hand
and place them on top of the packets to their immediate right. The right hand allows packet
2 to coalesce with packet 3. However, you maintain a small thumb break with your left thumb,
between packets 1 and 4 (Photo 13).

With your right hand, pick up the combined 2 / 3 packet. Two things now happen simultaneously.
You’ll toss the combined packet in your right hand into the middle of the combined left-hand
packet. To do this, the left hand will separate at the thumb break just enough to accept the
tossed cards. It appears you’re throwing the combined 2 / 3 packet into the left hand’s pile
somewhere. Actually, you’re replacing the middle of the deck back in the middle, right between
the top and bottom.

COMMENTS
Needless to say, there are other orders to make the laydown and other patterns to pick up
the packets. I have found these to be the most aesthetically pleasing; they look random and
spontaneous, but each one flows. If you wish to keep the cards face down the entire time, this is

21. Thanks to Andi Gladwin, who suggested this tossing action. Of the three variants, this one looks the most
casual and, therefore, the best.

46
also possible; the laydown looks almost as good, but the sequence changes. Rather than bottom,
top, bottom, top (which is what we do above), the face-down laydown sequence would be top,
bottom, top, bottom.

The Messy Utility

During the Pandemic, Harry Lorayne shared a
(then) unpublished false packet sequence, which
he mentioned could be used for a full deck false
cut.22 The cut has a messy, haphazard feel to
it, and at speed it looks as much like a shuffle
as a cut. I have expanded the sequence so that
it can be repeated, and to incorporate use of
the table, which adds a significant element of
randomness.

Utility Mixer
Here’s the basic idea of Harry’s original cut. 1

Begin by dribbling the cards into your left hand

so that the pack is in a slightly unsquared state.
Now thumb over the top third of the deck into
your right hand, placing the cards in a dealer’s
grip as you receive the cards in your right hand
(Photos 1 & 2).

Separate the hands for a moment and then

thumb over another third of the deck on top
of the cards in your right hand, but outjogged
about an inch and a half (Photo 3). Separate
2
the hands again for just a beat.

In a continuing action, move the left hand

under all the cards in the right hand and pin
the outjogged packet on top of the cards in the
left hand with the left thumb (Photo 4, next
page). Peel the outjogged packet back on top
of the cards in the left hand (Photos 5 & 6,
next page). To conclude, place the cards in the
right hand on top of the cards in the left hand.

22. Since then, Utility Mixer has been published in More Jaw Droppers, 2021.

47
 4 5

6 7

In essence, this false is simply about

removing the top packet of the deck for a
moment and then placing it back on top. It
has a deceptive rhythm to it, and a nice flow.

Harry does the cut on an even plane in an

action that simulates a Charlier Shuffle. I
find the cut is much more effective if you
add a pronounced wrist action. In other
words, as you take the first and second
packets into the right hand, angle the sides 8
of the cards upward, almost to a ninety
degree angle (Photo 7). Then, when you
take the outjogged packet back into the left
hand, move the left hand forward and “snap” the packet out of the right hand, flaring the faces
of the cards outward toward the audience (Photo 8). In a sense, these wrist actions make the
sequence feel “bigger” and messier and more casual.

Now let’s add some complexity.

48
Face-Up Mixer
The advantage of this sequence is that you flash many disparate faces of the deck in random
places, which helps reinforce a shuffled deck. This makes it ideal for memorized deck use.

Instead of thumbing over fully a third of

the deck with the first packet, instead thumb
over about ten cards into the right hand. Now
continue as described, outjogging a packet
above the first packet and then placing the
cards beneath it as you strip out the outjogged
packet. But rather than throw the initial top
packet back on top, instead take this packet and
flip it face up on the table (Photo 9).

With the cards remaining in your left hand, 9

repeat the sequence described above. At the
conclusion of the cut, drop the cards in your
right hand face up on top of those already on
the table. Repeat this one or two more times until all the cards in your hand are exhausted.
Although this simulates a shuffle in the hands and a sequence of cuts to the table, it’s entirely
false.

Face-Down Mixer
Instead of dropping the cards left in the right hand face up to the table, you can opt to drop
the cards remaining in your left hand to the table instead. So, in this case you carry out the
first actions of the sequence like this: thumb over about half the deck into your right hand,
and then thumb over a smaller packet outjogged on top of the cards in the right hand. Place
the remaining cards under all the cards in
your right hand and then strip out the upper
packet as already described.

At this point, drop all the cards in the left

hand face down onto the table, creating the
start of a messy pile (Photo 10). This is the
original bottom portion of the deck. Now
bring the hands together and repeat the
sequence, and at the conclusion, drop the
cards in the left hand on top of the cards on
the table. You can repeat this process one or
10 two more times until all the cards end up on
the table.

49
 Face-Down Hybrid Mixer
This is the last–and best–iteration of this sequence. We’ll combine the face-up and face-down
sequences just described so that in addition to the in-the-hands mixing, you’ll also get a tabled
false cut at the end.

Begin by thumbing over half the cards into your right hand. Now thumb over half of the
cards remaining in your left hand outjogged on top of the cards in the right hand. As already
described, place the cards remaining in the left hand under everything and strip out the
outjogged packet. Immediately drop the cards in the left hand onto the table to your left. This
is the bottom portion of the deck. So far, this is the Face-Down Mixer.

Repeat the shuffling actions, but this time drop the cards remaining in the right hand onto the
table, in a row just to the right of the first packet (Photo 11). This is the top portion of the
deck.

Repeat the shuffling actions a third time, and drop the cards remaining in the left hand to the
right of the row you’ve created (Photo 12). To conclude, do the full Utility Mixer sequence,
combining the cards in both hands together and dropping everything to the right of the row
(Photo 13).

11 12

13 14

50
 15 16

The cards on the table are in 4, 1, 3, 2 order, with 1 being the top of the deck and 4 being
the bottom (Photo 14). This means that you can assemble these cards in what seems like a
haphazard fashion to further mix them. Actually, you’ll just assemble them back into order, as
follows:

Pick up packet 1 with your right hand and skip over packet 3 to drop these cards onto packet 2
(Photo 15). With your left hand pick up packet 3 and drop it on packet 4 (Photo 16).

Without stopping, pick up the combined packets 1 and 2 and drop them on top of the combined
packets 3 and 4. The deck has been mixed in the hands, and then cut on the table, yet it’s still
in its original order.

COMMENTS
Just like the Ose Trilogy just described, this last handling addresses my feeling that tabled
packets should ideally not be collected in a linear fashion that mirrors how they are laid down.
To me, cuts of this kind intuitively look like they are being “undone” or controlled in a way
that maintains order. Here the packets are collected in a way that feels randomized and looks
visually different to how they were placed down.

The Fractal False Cut23

This cut is exactly what it looks like: a haphazard sequence of cuts with both hands, leaving the
entire working surface covered with small packets of cards. The cards appear to be collected in
an equally random fashion, but the entire sequence is false.

This isn’t the first false-cut sequence to simulate a seemingly random series of cuts everywhere;
there are others, but they’re all just hard to remember. While this particular arrangement looks

23. I devised this cut after watching Ben Earl perform a cut he credits to Dave Davies called 4D Discovery. See
Earl, Ben, Past Midnight, 2007. In this cut, two vertical rows of three packets are cut forward and cards are
revealed on the last packet. It has a nice rhythm to it, but I couldn’t help but perceive that the cards were cut in a
linear fashion and collected in the reverse order. This was my attempt to “shuffle” the packets in a way that would
be harder to follow.
51
 asymmetrical and random, there’s a pattern to it. And once you understand the pattern, the cut
is easy to remember.

I’ve designed the cut to be a “fractal” false cut, to borrow a term from Lennart Green. This
means that at the end of the eight-packet sequence, you can simply start it again with the last
packet. In this way, you can cut sixteen separate packets on the table. Both “rounds” of packets
are assembled in the same way, so again, there’s no additional memory work required.

The other handy part of the Fractal False Cut is that it makes for a compelling two-card
revelation. In “Fireworks Finale” (p. 161), we’ll use this cut as part of an entire suit location.

Begin with the pack held horizontally between your hands, near the table’s edge. With your
right hand, lift half the pack and table it directly in front of the lower half (Photo 1). Note
that the left fingers and thumb remain in contact with the lower half of the pack. With each
hand contacting its packet, lift off nearly all the cards in each packet, leaving just a small packet
beneath each cut-off portion (Photo 2).

Your hands will cross with their packets as follows: move your right hand directly to the left
of the outer, tabled packet as you move your left hand to the right of the outer, tabled packet
(Photo 3). Touch each packet to the table and allow a few cards to flick off of each thumb.

1 2

3 4

52
 5 6

Uncross the hands as you move both hands

inward and touch the cards to the table
again, this time even with the inner, tabled
packet—which is the original bottom of the
deck (Photo 4). At this point, you’ve created
two rows of packets, with three packets in
each row. For now, symmetry is fine, but later
we’ll tweak the rhythm of the cutting and
the placement of the packets so it doesn’t
look so controlled and neat.
7
To conclude the cut, lift half of the remaining
cards in each hand and leapfrog both rows,
dropping the cards in each hand just in front
of the outer packets (Photo 5). The right hand drops its cards to the right, the left hand drops
its cards to the left. There are now three rows: inner, middle, and outer. The inner and middle
rows have three packets, while the outer row has just two.

Originally, I simply collected the packets in reverse order, but this isn’t difficult for viewers
to perceive. So instead, we’ll simultaneously collect cards in each hand, and we’ll begin in the
middle of the deck so it looks like you’re picking up piles randomly and collecting them just as
randomly.

With your left hand, grasp the packet at the left of the inner row and move it to the right packet
of the middle row (Photo 6). At the same time, move the right hand to the right packet at the
outer row. At the moment the left hand places its packet on top of the middle-right packet, the
right hand crosses over the left and drops its cards on top of the inner right packet (Photo 7).

Now both hands move simultaneously for their next step. The left hand lifts all the cards it holds
and drops them on top of the inner-middle packet, which is the original bottom of the deck. The
left fingers then remain around this packet for the duration of the cut. Simultaneously, the right
hand moves its cards to the middle-left packet (Photo 8, next page). In a continuing action, the

53
 8 9

10 11

right hand picks up all its cards and drops

them on the middle-middle packet (Photos
9 & 10). Now move the cards in the right
hand on top of the left packet, but maintain
a break with the right thumb (Photo 11).

Look down and appear to notice that one

small packet—the outer-left packet—has
been forgotten. Retrieve the cards with the
left hand as you lift up at the break with your
right hand. Toss the cards into an apparently
12
random spot in the center of the deck, but
actually toss this last packet on top of top
of the tabled cards and then replace all the
right-hand cards on top to complete the cut (Photo 12).

Like any new sequence, this is initially a lot to remember. There are fourteen distinct steps:
seven cuts and seven collections. But think of it like this: you divide the deck in half and then
the hands mirror each other perfectly. So one hand is always doing the exact same action as the
other hand, but reversed. In this way, it’s really only three actions that you need to remember.

54
Now let’s put on the two finishing touches.
Once you’ve practiced this sequence a bit, vary
the position of the packets so the rows are less
defined (Photo 13). This takes care of itself
when you look up as you perform the sequence,
and I think it’s best to look up during the
cutting sequence anyway.

The rhythm is what makes this cut most

effective. I explained this cut with the hands
moving simultaneously at each step, but that
13
isn’t quite how I perform it. I stagger the cuts
ever so slightly, so that it’s a rapid succession of
individual actions, with the hands constantly
crossing over each other. I vary the timing, but as a rule, my right hand moves a second ahead of
the left in each sequence. So rather than three cutting actions that the hands do simultaneously,
it looks like eight individual packets are being cut to the table.

The Repeat
In theory you can repeat this sequence three times. But this isn’t practical because you’ll run
out of cards and table space before you can complete it. But doing it twice is great, if you’ve
got the space.

The cut sequence is exactly the same, except that instead of initially cutting the deck in half
(see Photo 1 again), you’ll cut about three-quarters of the cards forward. And the objective is
to make all the packets with the right hand as small as possible, to leave as many cards at the
end as you can. The right hand’s cards end up in the right-outer packet. If you wish to repeat
the cut, just place this packet down at the end aligned vertically (Photo 14).

Now you can repeat the same sequence entirely, cutting half of this packet forward with
the right hand and then cutting through the pattern with both hands. Maintain the vertical
position of all the packets in this “repeat” sequence so that you don’t get confused when you’re
collecting them in a moment (Photo 15).

14 15

55
 When I repeat the sequence, I stand up and perform the second sequence faster than the first,
maniacally cutting the cards to the outer edge of the table. The cleanup is exactly as you would
expect. First collect the cards as explained with all the vertical packets. Then, in a continuous
action, repeat the sequence with the remaining eight packets.

The Fractal False Cut Production

This cut can be used to produce the top two cards of the deck. It’s a nice sequence for an Ace
production or, as we’ll explore later, as part of a production of an entire suit of cards. The only
addition is to make the first cut a slip cut. That is, place your left first finger on top of the deck
and hold the top card back on the left-hand packet as you slide the top half of the deck forward
with your right hand (Photo 16).

Now, at the conclusion of the cutting sequence, turn over the top card of the outer piles to
reveal the Aces or selections (Photo 17).

16 17

Half Stack False Shuffle

Several routines in this book (and many memorized deck routines) rely on only half a stack.
This means that roughly half the cards can be shuffled legitimately while you secretly maintain
control over half the deck. For these instances I’ve devised a disarming sequence in which you
apparently search for Jokers as you hand out packets to be shuffled. It appears you give each
half of the deck to a participant to shuffle separately. Actually, you give her the same packet
to shuffle twice. Sequences like this exist already, but the justification I use (of removing the
Jokers) is something I haven’t seen, and it motivates the whole action in a way that feels quite
realistic. I use this in both “Sequenced” (p. 133) and “The Curious Incident” (p. 259).

Suppose you wish to preserve the order of half the deck, and this packet is resting crosswise on
the card box on the table to your right. The other half is held in your hands and is not in any
order. You must conspire to have both Jokers in this half of the deck.

Typically, I remove the Jokers before I begin a memorized deck set, and place them on top of

56
the card box face down. A trick or two before I get into a half-deck set, I’ll casually add them to
the pack or set the deck on top of the card box, thus adding them in. However you conspire to
get into position, let’s assume you begin by passing out the cards in your hand, which consists
of a mixed packet of cards with two Jokers inside.

“Please, shuffle these up thoroughly. Then I’ll have you shuffle the other half, and then we’ll mix them all
together. That way we’re certain that it’s thorough.” Take back the shuffled packet and ask, “By the
way, did you take out the Jokers?” It’s a rhetorical question because as you ask, you fan through
the cards face up until you come to the first Joker. Upjog it and remove it and then continue
spreading through, tilting the spread toward yourself so the faces are just out of sight. Spread
right past the second Joker; you want to give the impression that the other Joker is in the other
packet.

“There’s one,” you say, as you square the packet from the sides and pull out the outjogged Joker,
dropping it face up onto the table. Now you’ll do a packet switch, pretending to swap the cards
in your hand for the cards on the box. Actually, you’ll re-table the cards on the box and then
retake the cards in your hand.

To do this, flip the packet in your hand face up and grasp it from above in right end grip. Place
the packet right-jogged on top of the face-down packet on top of the card box and lift both
packets into your right hand (Photo 1).

Rotate the packets forward, end for end by rotating the right hand palm up (Photo 2). This
changes the orientation of each packet. With your left hand, grasp the lowermost, face-down
packet between the thumb and first finger and extract it toward the right (Photo 3, next page).
This is, of course, the same packet that was just shuffled. At the same time, place the packet in
your right hand on the table, but this time toward your left. It’s a small point, but by placing the
packet in a different place on the table, it helps differentiate it from the “other” packet (Photo
4, next page).

In a continuing action, spread through the cards in your hand until you come to the second
Joker. If you wish to vocalize it at all, say something casual like, “Here’s the other one,” or “It
was over here, actually,” and then follow it up by saying, “And would you shuffle these cards as well.”

1 2

57
 3 4

Remove the second Joker, table it, and hand the participant the cards in your hands.

When you take back the second packet, you can pretend to mix it into the first in any way
you like: a push-through shuffle, a Zarrow Shuffle, or simply pretending to overhand mix the
packets together.

COMMENTS
Whenever I’ve seen magicians use this packet-for-packet switch to simulate the actions of
shuffling two halves separately, the only motivation used is to divide up the shuffling. Here,
the switch is done as you search for Jokers, and handing out the “other” pile occurs as a sort of
afterthought.

58
Disorderly
Thoughts
We tend to think of false shuffles in only mechanical terms, but I’ve come to
believe that an important, overlooked aspect of false shuffles is presentation. I’m
not just talking about attitude; I’m talking about context.

A great dilemma of any sort of stack magic is concealing the order. This is
of paramount concern in some of the material we’ll deal with later. When you
locate the thirteen Diamonds in order, or deal a perfect bridge hand, or show the
deck is back in new deck order, you must convince the audience the pack has been
well-shuffled.

Is it enough to fill in the gaps with your favorite false cuts and shuffles? Does a
convincing false shuffle eradicate the thought that the cards were in order? I’m
not so convinced.

We’ve always been taught to draw attention away from our false shuffles; we’re
meant to talk or ask questions as the cards are shuffled. The idea is to call less
attention to the hands and the cards. I often do just this. But my worry is that too
little attention on mixing the cards isn’t always a good thing.

Here are three strategies I use to call more attention to the cards being mixed.

Use Better Techniques

Blunt, perhaps, but many magicians use false shuffles and cuts that are so optically
flimsy that they require a spectator’s inattention. I prefer shuffles that can be done
casually yet can also withstand the occasional spectator who just won’t look away
from my hands.

I’m all about expanding one’s toolbox to encompass a variety of false shuffles and
cuts, but I fear some magicians make poor choices. For example, there is no need
to master complex overhand shuffles with long runs of single cards and multiple
breaks, yet shuffles of this nature are mentioned in several memorized deck texts.
False shuffles like this cannot be studied closely or done face up since the face

59
 card never changes. There are other false shuffles that require misdirection or an audience’s
inattention—some shuffles sound better than they look. There are enough convincing false
shuffles that you need never resort to subpar techniques. Instead, identify the best shuffles and
cuts within your skillset, and dedicate yourself to those. Practice makes perfect, and perfection
takes time. The moral is: choose carefully. As John Carney wrote, “Even the best technique is
not a substitute for good judgment.”24

Present Your False Shuffles

Normally we hide our false shuffles in the shadows of our tricks; they’re happening when we’re
talking or doing other things. But what if we call attention to the very thing we’ve been told
not to draw attention to?

We should do this sparingly, I think, and with intention. Consider the Group Shuffle, just
described. That isn’t a sequence you can do while you explain the rules of poker, or talk about
a card trick that your grandfather showed you as a child. No, the Group Shuffle requires a
presentation in itself. I speak about a shuffle I created to be extra fair, where two of us shuffle at
the same time. There is inherent humor in the situation, and the shuffle is unlike anything any
lay person has ever used before.

There is another instance in which I “present” false shuffles. Just before any of the three finale
routines for the Particle System, I often take ninety seconds to introduce audiences to a series
of shuffles. “What I’m about to attempt is the hardest part of the show so far,” I explain, setting an
expectation for the difficulty of the routine that will follow. “But before I do that, I want to go over
the shuffles I’ll use as I manipulate the cards.” I’m clear that manipulation will take place when I
shuffle the cards; that’s an aesthetic choice I’ve made.

“This is called the overhand shuffle. This is the most common kind of shuffle in private games.” I
demonstrate the Chili Shuffle here. “This one is called a riffle shuffle. And that’s called a bridge.”
Here I demonstrate a false, tabled riffle shuffle. In between these shuffles, I throw in a version
or two of the Ose Trilogy. “In Las Vegas, you have to keep the cards on the table. Anybody know why?
That’s right! To prevent any players from seeing the bottom cards of the deck.” As I talk, I execute a
push-through shuffle and a simple series of false cuts. Then, to finish, I use the Undo Cut, as
explained above. But again, I “present” it: “The most thorough shuffle of all is called ‘a wash,’ which
is where cards are tossed onto the table like this and mixed around.” So saying, I toss packets to the
table as explained. This isn’t technically a “wash” in the strictest sense, but it looks enough like
what people have seen in casinos to be believed. “They shuffle on a table like this so ‘the eye in the
sky,’ the overhead cameras, can see that the dealer is shuffling fairly.”

See what I mean? I’m explaining the various shuffles I use, throwing in a little background
information if it’s interesting. But what’s really going on here is a deliberate pause in the action
to call attention to the shuffling. My sense is that audience interest would wane after about two
minutes, so I keep this as short as possible.

24. See Carney, John, The Book of Secrets, 2002, p. 290.

60
I’ve seen magicians do shuffle presentations like this before,25 but they’re usually used for
comedic effect, not to establish disorder. Roberto Giobbi discusses this tactic as well. “The
problem,” he writes, “is not so much the shuffle itself, but that the entire audience remembers the
shuffle.”26

Super-Ultimate-Best-Ever-Deluxe-False-Shuffle 2.0
I’ve uncovered the best way to convince an audience a deck has been shuffled: let a spectator
shuffle the pack. There’s an irreplaceable power to an audience-shuffled deck. This is obvious, I
suppose. And completely impossible.

Or is it?

I did a lot of the early test-performances for the Particle System material on cruise ships.
Like the Magic Castle, I was able to repeat a thirty-minute performance many times in quick
succession, making tweaks along the way. One thing that was clear to me early on was that if I
ended with a new deck order or full-deck Matching effect (and we’ll explore both of these built-
in features later), the audience had to be convinced that the deck was shuffled. My observation
was that in formal performances, the normal array of false shuffles and cuts wasn’t enough.

The key, it turns out, is letting the audience thoroughly shuffle the cards at the top of the show,
and then switching packs. I can’t overstate the difference in reactions when I let the audience
shuffle. In close-up performances this is less of an issue, but with a seated crowd and a little
distance from the table, this audience shuffle proved invaluable.

But it presents a different kind of problem, one of a theatrical nature. I walked onstage and
immediately passed out a deck for shuffling. This is, to me, a weak way to start a performance.
Even if you find something interesting to do or say while the spectator shuffles, this critical
sixty seconds is boring to watch. But if we overlap the spectator-shuffling with jokes or a
presentation, it may not be as memorable in their minds twenty minutes later, when cards are
appearing in order. We solve one problem only to encounter another.

I eventually developed a solution that solved both problems. Before a formal show, I place a
boxed pack of cards in the Particle System on the seat of my chair. If the chair is tucked under
the table and the table is skirted, the deck will be hidden from view.

I have the host walk out with a normal pack of cards in the box two minutes before I’m
introduced. She holds up the pack and explains that, “Our next performer will be presenting
an act with a normal, regulation pack of cards. Before he begins, he asks that someone familiar
with cards examine this deck, shuffle it thoroughly, and then place it back in the box.”

25. See Close, Michael, “The Shuffles Routine,” Closely Guarded Secrets, 2018, Second Edition. Michael’s innovation
was to collect these old presentational gags into a routine in which you eventually find a selected card.
26. Giobbi suggests a participant shuffle the cards in various ways as he offers commentary, thus bringing attention
to an otherwise mundane turn-of-events. See Giobbi, Roberto, The Art of Switching Decks, 2013, p. 19.

61
 When I walk onstage, I retrieve the box of cards on my walk to the table, thanking the spectator
on the way. “Everything look okay? And did you shuffle them thoroughly? Thank you.” Now I pull the
chair out in preparation to sit down. I transfer the retrieved deck into my right hand and seat
myself, allowing the cooler27 to remain between my legs (Photo 1). I lower my right hand out
of view for a moment, ostensibly to pull my chair closer to the table. In that moment, I drop the
deck in my right hand on my lap and grasp the cooler in my right hand (Photo 2). Now I can use
my right hand to assist in pulling the chair closer to the table, and I bring the right hand back
into view and table the cooler for a moment while I introduce myself. A few moments later, my
empty hands go back into my lap to retrieve the switched-out deck. I can tuck it into my pocket
or my case, and proceed with my performance.

I’ve dubbed this strategy the Super-Ultimate-Best-Ever-Deluxe-False-Shuffle 2.0 because it

ticks all the boxes. By moving the shuffling process before the show, we avoid the ugly theatrical
issues of pausing a performance so a spectator can shuffle cards. Yet the moments leading up
to the show are the perfect balance of focus and excitement: the host’s announcement won’t be
easily forgotten. We solve the problem before the show even begins.

False shuffling is the last piece of the Particle puzzle; you now have the order, the “work,” and
the tools to make the deck look shuffled. I realize that if this is your first reading, you’re unlikely
to have memorized the cards at this point, and that’s fine. All that I ask is that you convert a
deck of cards into the Particle System—don’t forget the breathers or the short card—so that
you can follow along.

Let’s begin the way I like to begin my performances…

27. Term used first by card cheats and subsequently magicians to describe the deck about to be switched in. It is
said that this term was derived from the idea that the cold deck or “cooler” was colder to the touch than the deck
in play.

62
Part II:
Close-up Magic

Let’s step gently into the Particle System with a collection of tricks designed to
be done up-close. All of the effects in this chapter are short, punchy, and require
no table. And nearly every one maintains the order of the Particle System.

My hope is that by the end of this chapter you’ll understand that the Particle
System is a synthesis of several methods that together yield a single, desired
effect. Don’t assume that the marked cards are there for one or two tricks, or
that the breathers are there to help only with jazzing. In most effects we’ll
use the breathers to get us close to a particular spot, the marked cards to
zero in on a card or position, and sleight-of-hand to accomplish the trick.
Remember to Be
Honest
When I perform for a very small group or without a table, this
is how I like to begin my card performances. Eddie Fechter’s “Be
Honest, What Is It?”28 is, perhaps, the world’s most economical
way to get someone to scream without pinching them or using a plastic
spider. It’s quick, fair, and offers built-in interaction—two cards seem to
change in their hands. Having this trick built right at the top of the Particle
System has proven invaluable to me. It isn’t difficult to get into this trick
from a shuffled pack, but it’s certainly better to have it at-the-ready, all the
time. The handling I’ll describe is changed ever-so-slightly to accommodate
the alternating order of the cards.

EFFECT
You clearly display two black Kings and place them securely under a participant’s thumb. Both
cards change into red Aces while held by the participant.

PERFORMANCE
Thumb over the top two cards into your right
hand. With your right thumb and fingers, push
the lowermost card of the pair, the King of
Spades, forward for half its length (Photo 1).
At the same time, obtain a break beneath the
top two cards in your left hand, under the King
of Clubs, as you return the spread to the top
of deck. The injogged Ace of Hearts should be
aligned with the pack and the outjogged King
of Spades should protrude from the front by
1

28. See Fechter, Eddie, The Magician Nitely, 1974.

65
 2 3

half its length (Photo 2). In a continuing action, turn all four cards held at the break face up
sidewise, revealing a King of Clubs on top of the deck and the King of Spades outjogged
(Photo 3). Keep a left fourth-finger break as you flip over this group of cards; you’ll need this
advantage when you go to turn them back face down in a few moments.

With your right hand, swivel the King of Spades from the pack and take it in your right hand.
You should now have the King of Clubs face up on top of both face-up, red Aces in your left
hand. You’re now ready for a triple turnover. That entire procedure takes a couple seconds, and
occurs before you really even begin to present the effect.

“An observation test,” you begin, “with two black Kings. Pay very close attention. I’ve got the King of
Spades here. Make a fist with your hand and raise your thumb. Good. Now clamp down on the King of
Spades.” So saying, display the King of Spades in your right hand and feed it face down under
the participant’s thumb.

Now have some fun. “What card are you holding right now?” The participant often hesitates here.
“Are you sure? You can check if you don’t trust me.” When they check, I quickly say, “Great. You
don’t trust me. We JUST met, and you don’t trust me…okay, okay, no peeking from here on out. This is
a memory test.”

Call attention to the King of Clubs face up

on the deck. “You have the King of Spades
and I have the King of Clubs. If I switch
them like this…” Turn the triple face down
and deal the top card into your right hand.
Then openly switch this card with the King
of Spades already held by the participant
(Photo 4). Now I continue, “…which card
are you holding now?” Thanks to the brilliant
construction by Eddie Fechter, your scrutiny
over the first card will calm all of their
suspicions, and they’ll jump to tell you that 4

they’re now holding the King of Clubs.

66
As you ask this question, turn the card you’re holding face up and use it to gesture toward their
face-down card. This gives them one last glance at a black King.

As you pose this question, make eye contact with the participant and relax your body. Under
cover of this offbeat, execute a top change, exchanging the King of Spades for the Ace of
Diamonds.

I immediately follow this question with another. “And if I put my card on top of yours, which one
is on top right now?” Slip the Ace of Diamonds face down under the participant’s thumb, above
the Ace of Hearts.

“Would you be impressed if I could make those cards switch places?” They, of course, interpret this
question as making the two black Kings change places with each other. What you’re about to
show them is exponentially more impressive and surprising. “I did it. Take a look.”

The participant turns over her cards to reveal two red Aces, out of nowhere.

RESET
Take back the Aces face up in the order they’re in (Hearts on the face, Diamonds at the back). As
you do this, get a break under the top card of the pack. Flip the red Aces face down on top of
the deck and then immediately lift all three cards above the break. As you do this, peel the top
card, the Ace of Diamonds, back onto the deck and toss the two cards on top. Now everything
is back in stack origin.

COMMENTS
• I’m a textbook overthinker, so I’m bothered by the notion that when I start a set, two black
Kings just happen to be on top. Did I place them there? Should I pretend to sift through the
deck to find them? Should I act surprised to see two Kings together, like, “Oh, okay, I guess
we can use the two black Kings for this.” I tried all of these approaches, and I can confidently
relay to you that not only do these things not improve the overall impact, but they attempt
to solve a problem that isn’t a problem. When you approach a group of people and flip over
the top card, asking them to make their hand into a fist, the last thing on their mind is the
logic of why that card is on top of the deck. They’re just excited for what you’re about to
do.

• It’s only now, as I describe the way I do an effect that isn’t mine but has been in my repertoire
for two decades, that I reflect on my lack of presentation. I’ve played around with different
ways to present this two-card change. But this particular trick is so impactful as a quickie
that I’ve discovered no way to improve it by adding more words. Instead, its power is in its
simplicity.

In the next effect, our words play a more critical role.

67
 Memorized X-Ray
A bold claim: Ben Harris and Steve Shufton’s “X-Ray” might be
the best card trick you’ve never heard of.29 The magician who
did it for me, Magick Balay, did it right: he mixed it into the
middle of his set, and did some material that appeared to shuffle
the cards. And he just sold it when he did it; I believed he was
struggling to get it right. The trick is so easy—automatic, actually—that
you have to feign difficulty to give it some drama. I was totally fooled.

When I learned the method my immediate thought was, that’s a lot of

preparation for one trick. And it is, if you’re using an otherwise shuffled pack.
The trick relies on four breather cards and a special setup throughout the
pack. Much later, I started to think about the other advantages of having
shortcuts to four different places in a deck of cards. A memorized deck is the
perfect setting for “X-Ray.”

I initially felt that if I built “X-Ray” into the stack, I would have easy access
to a superb card trick, and that having some breathers throughout the deck
would be a little bonus. Now I realize that the inverse is true: having a shortcut
to every tenth card is the real prize (which you’ll soon see, in “Thoughts on
Thought-of Cards,” p. 114, and many other effects throughout the book).
Having “X-Ray” at your fingertips is the bonus.

I’ve been using “X-Ray” for years and have changed most of the details in
the handling. You may wish to compare this with Harris’ original.

29. Originally sold as a manuscript. See Harris, Ben, X-Ray, 2010.

68
 EFFECT
You nominate two people to help with an experiment, and ask them both to stand behind the
table. To keep things fair, you go to the very back of the room, shouting instructions back to
your helpers. You ask the participants to work together to reverse a card in the center of the
pack, and then to place the cards in the box. From the back of the room, you discern the card
they cut to and its position in the pack.

SETUP
I’ll assume you’re using the Particle System, with bottom-cutting breathers at 10, 20, 30, and 40.

PERFORMANCE
For close-up situations, I can just turn my back. But the most effective way to present this for
a group is to make it big, by situating your participants at the front of the room, and yourself
at the back.

The only danger in performing the original “X-Ray” is what happens if the participant doesn’t
cut to one of the breather cards. The answer was that there was no answer; you were out of
luck. Here, if a pesky participant digs her finger into the deck or cuts one card to try to throw
you, there is an easy out, which we’ll go over.

But there is a strategy I use to maximize the chances this works as planned. To begin, I use two
people instead of one. This is a trick that requires directions, and in any trick of this nature,
I’ve learned that giving two people the same task gives them twice the odds to get it right.
When you ask one person to cut a packet of cards, turn over and remember the card they cut
to, and replace the cards in their hand on the tabled packet…a lot can go wrong. Much of the
time, the participant does it all correctly but forgets the card. With two people, it almost never
requires evasive action.

I also discovered that people are far more likely to cut to a breather crimp when the cards are
held in someone’s hand, rather than on a table. But of course, if the performer holds the cards,
this feels less fair. Having one participant hold the pack and the other cut feels fairest.

Finally, I borrow a line from Mike Pisciotta30: “Cut the cards like we’re playing a game.” As Mike
points out, people cut in all kinds of silly, ridiculous ways. But if you ask them to cut like
they’re playing in a game, they tend to lift off a packet as the trick requires.

With that said, here’s the presentation, which I establish as I give the cards a thorough false
shuffle and cut. “I’d like to ask you, Dawn, and you, Jen, to help me with this. To be completely fair, I’m
going over here, against this wall, and I’ll face away the whole time.”

I give the deck to one of them face down and position both of them behind the table, in front
of the audience. I walk as far away as I can.

30. See Pisciotta, Mike, Subterranean Deceptions, 2015.

69
 “Dawn, hold out the cards toward Jen. And Jen, I want you to cut the pack like you would in a game of
cards. Lift off a packet. You can lift off a small packet or a large packet, or somewhere in the middle.
Up to you.” Allow Jen to lift off a packet.

“Now Dawn, I want you to turn over the top card of your packet, which is the card Jen cut to. Show it to
everyone, but not to me. Dawn, replace this card FACE UP on your packet. Have you done that? Good.
Jen, plop your cards back on top to lose your card back into the deck.”

Allow them to comply. “And to be totally fair, put the cards into the card box so that I can’t see
anything.” From across the room, I reiterate the fair conditions, including the following phrase,
which borrows heavily from the work of Juan Tamariz. “The deck was shuffled and then cut by Jen,
at ANY card.” That statement is factually accurate, except that I shuffled and Jen cut. But the
hope is that they will remember it as though Jen herself shuffled and cut.

“Then Dawn and Jen buried the card back into the deck, facing up.” Now I set an expectation for an
impressive feat, but a feat less impressive than the one I’m about to perform. “If I were to tell you
the color of your card, from all the way over here, that might be impressive, but I’m not going to do that.”

“Dawn, will you hold the card box above your head? When I was a kid I didn’t idolize magicians as much
as I idolized superheroes. My favorite superhero, Superman, had x-ray vision. He would be able to stare
at that box and see through the cards, to the one facing the other direction.” I squint at the box for a
moment, and then make a series of claims.

Now we’re into the fishing procedure. As outlined earlier, the cards that fall at 11, 21, 31, and
41 comprise a perfect set for progressive fishing. The cards are:

11 Three of Diamonds
21 Six of Hearts
31 Eight of Diamonds
41 Jack of Hearts

You begin with an answer that will always be yes (unless the participant has cut to a card other
than one of the breathers).

“I see that you cut to a red card. Right?” All of the possibilities are red, so Dawn will agree.

“Now there are number cards and picture cards, but I see a number card.” This will be another yes,
unless Jen cut to the deepest key, the Jack of Hearts. If you get a “no,” own up to it. “Oh you’re
right. I see that now. It is a picture card. In fact, it’s a Jack. It’s the Jack of Hearts.”

If Dawn confirms the card is a number card, you proceed to say that it’s an even card. If you
get a “no” here, you know it’s the only odd card, the Three of Diamonds. If you get a “yes,” you
know it’s the Six of Hearts or the Eight of Diamonds.

The last question is purposely ambiguous, which doubles your chances of not having to get a
“no” at all. You ask, “Dawn, the number cards run from Ace to Ten, and here I’m seeing a high-value

70
number card. Right?” If Jen cut to the Eight of Diamonds, this will be a confident, automatic yes.
If Jen cut to the Six of Hearts, there will be hesitation, maybe even some confusion. As soon as
you sense this, clarify it for them: “I consider Six and above to be high cards.” In either case, you
now know the selection. Reveal it as dramatically as possible.

Just to summarize the steps:

• You begin by asserting that the card is red.

• Then, you assert that it’s a number card (if not, it’s the Jack of Hearts).
• Then, you assert that it’s an even card (if not, it’s the Three of Diamonds).
• Then, you assert that the card is a high value (if there’s hesitation or confusion, it’s the Six
of Hearts).

Now you take things further. “Jen, can you confirm that you cut anywhere you wanted? And Dawn,
can you confirm that you were holding the cards, not me, when Jen cut? And you replaced the card in
the deck yourselves. Right? There’s no way I could control where you cut.” Please, read that script
carefully; it took a long time to develop the exact phrasing.

The idea is to pivot the fairness of the cutting procedure into replacement of the selection.
It’s true that Jen could cut anywhere she liked, but she was told specifically to replace the card
where she found it. Without saying something obvious enough to raise suspicion, we use this
script to color in the audience’s memory slightly better than the real events.

“To be fair, I just told you what card you cut to. I didn’t know it, but you two knew it. But nobody knows
where you cut the card in the deck. If I had x-ray vision, I would be able to see how many cards are above
your Eight of Diamonds. I think it’s at the 31st position.” Now I return to the table and ask Dawn
to remove the cards carefully from the box and to spread them on the table face down. With
one finger I slide the cards to one side, counting one number for each card. I take care to keep
the cards in order as I do this. Thanks to the Particle System, the Eight of Diamonds will fall
at 31. You turn the card face down and you’re back in stack origin.

Last part: what happens if the participant cuts somewhere else in the deck? If it’s clear as you
begin to fish that the participant isn’t thinking of one of the four target cards, you immediately
bypass the mindreading portion of the effect, and instead reveal only its position in the deck. It
might sound like this: “I can see you picked a red card. Right?”

“Wrong.”

“Well, can you blame me? I’m using x-ray vision from across the room! The point I’m making is that it’s
impossible to know what your card is, and more importantly, where you cut to in the deck. For the first
time, name your card.” When she names her card, I squint, as if trying to peer into the box. “I
can see six, ten, fourteen, no, SIXTEEN cards. Yes, the Ten of Clubs is exactly sixteen cards from the
top of the deck.” The counting is handled the same way.

71
 COMMENTS
“X-Ray” has that “two for the price of one” quality to us as magicians: when someone cuts at
a breather, we know both the value and position of the card. But the audience doesn’t see how
these things are connected; they are two equally impressive feats. And they should be presented
that way.

If I had to guess, I’d say that in 90% of my performances of this trick, the participant cuts to
one of the middle two breathers, at position 20 or 30. An overwhelming majority of people
cut closer to the center than to the ends. This works in our favor, since the progressive fishing
favors the middle two cards. But I still emphasize that the participant can cut anywhere she
likes: near the top, the middle, or the bottom. This effect isn’t nearly as deceptive if someone
thinks one card is simply bent somewhere in the middle of the deck. Its power comes from the
apparent total freedom to cut anywhere.

Breather Cutter
There’s a quicker, related effect that you should know about, thanks to the same setup for
“X-Ray.” Let’s call it “Breather Cutter.”

If the setting is too loud for a performance piece like that described above, I’ll sometimes do a
simpler effect. You can hand someone the deck in the Particle System and turn your back. Now
ask the participant to cut anywhere she likes, and to look at the face card of the packet she cuts,
and then to replace it. You mime this action to make it perfectly clear.

Rather than forcing one of the four red cards used in “X-Ray,” you’ll force one of the four
breather cards. Since these are bottom-cutting breathers, when someone looks at the face of the
packet, they’ll force one of the four breathers on themselves. And just like the four cards used
in “X-Ray,” these four cards possess the same progressive fishing qualities:

10 Jack of Spades
20 Nine of Clubs
30 Six of Spades
40 Four of Clubs

You begin by asserting that the card is black.

Then you assert that the card is a number card. (If not, it’s the Jack of Spades.)

Then you assert that the card is an even card. (If not, it’s the Nine of Clubs.)

Then you assert that the card is low. (You use the same ambiguity described above, except that
you claim that “low” is Six and under.) This question determines whether it’s the Six of Spades
or the Four of Clubs.

72
I use this all the time. Asking a participant to cut to any place in the deck while my back is
turned, and then telling them their card, is potent. But the real impact is in the follow-up effect.
Consider this: any of the four target cards are a cut (or a classic pass) away. The second you
know which card was chosen, you can secretly maneuver it to the face of the deck, where it can
be palmed or revealed in your favorite way.

If the participant doesn’t cut to a breather at all, you’ll have the same advantage you always
have with a memorized pack: you know where all the cards are. You would simply ask the
participant to announce her card aloud and guide her using your favorite location technique.

73
 Invisible Touch
I recognized early on in my memorized deck journey that nearly all
published memorized deck effects involve thought-of cards. Nobody
wants to watch an entire set in which every effect begins with, “Name
a card.” I want texture in my performances—even informal ones.

Here’s a trick that works with any stack and doesn’t involve the
selection of a card. “Invisible Touch” simulates extreme skill, but it’s actually
quite easy to perform. This is one of my earliest compositions with a memorized
deck, and, while it doesn’t require the Particle System, it does make things easier.

EFFECT
In a demonstration of finger agility and estimation, the performer invites a participant to
cut off any number of cards from the pack. The performer studies the side of the packet and
accurately announces the number of cards cut.

Now the magician asks the participant to name any number of cards. Without hesitation the
performer cuts this exact number of cards from the top of the deck.

Finally, the performer offers the ultimate demonstration in card counting. Once a participant
has counted a packet of cards, he causes three cards to travel into the packet without touching
the cards at all.

PERFORMANCE
“I’d like to show you how a magician might cheat in a game of cards. People assume, incorrectly, that
you can’t cheat if you don’t touch the cards. But let me show you how it’s possible to cheat with your eyes.”
Holding the pack in your left hand, raise the pack to your eye level and ask a participant to cut
off any number of cards she likes. Stress that she can cut shallow or deep, but remind her that
she’ll have to count the cards, so less than half is ideal.

In this particular trick, she really can cut absolutely anywhere. Since there are breathers
throughout the deck, it’s likely she will cut at one of these cards. The breathers play no role in
this trick; every scenario is handled the same way.

74
When holding the pack near your face, it’s impossible not to see the face card of the packet cut
by the participant. And the stack number of this card, of course, tells you how many cards have
been cut off. These are memorized deck basics, but it’s easy to forget how powerful this is.

This is an amusing glimpse in that you don’t have to pretend to look away; you’re meant to be
closely watching the side of the pack, estimating the number of cards cut off. So the second
you see the face card of the packet, call out the stack number. “Seventeen cards! The thickness of
that packet tells me there are seventeen—no, sixteen, no—seventeen cards in that packet. Go ahead. Check
my work.”

The participant can verify there are seventeen cards in the packet. Since no table is used, it’s
highly likely she will count from hand to hand, taking each card under the previous one. That
keeps everything in the same order. If she starts to count on a surface or is unclear how to
count the cards, hold out your other hand so she can deal onto your hand. But ask her to deal
them face up. Again, this way the cards stay in stack order. I’ve never felt like the participants
noticed any pattern in the cards being dealt, but then again, dealing face up rarely occurs.

I should point out that if you’re using the Particle System, you don’t need to do this glimpse
at all; the marking on the back of the top card in your hand tells you how many cards the
participant cut. But I have to admit, I still do the glimpse the way I originally devised because
I like the plausibility of putting the cards inches from my eye. My sense is that participants
believe this estimation is real.

Replace the cards on top of the deck and proceed into the next phase, as follows. “Last time you
cut the cards and I told you how many you cut. This time you tell me how many cards you want, and I’ll
cut that many.” Place the cards in the participant’s hands.

The participant is completely free to name any number, and I don’t restrict her choice at all. In
fact, the larger the number, the easier the method is to conceal. Whatever number she names,
you immediately cut slightly more than the number called. It doesn’t matter if you cut three or
five or ten cards too many. Just don’t cut less than the number named.

The Particle System helps you here because the breathers act as guidelines. If 26 is named, I’ll
cut to the breather at 30. If 17 is named, I’ll cut to the breather at 20. On the other hand, if 22
is named, I’ll riffle up the side of the pack a little to cut as close to 25 or so as I can make it. I
try not to over-cut by more than seven cards or so. But have no fear, this works no matter what.

Take all the cards you cut and place them in your left hand. As you square the cards, execute
a pinky pull down to obtain a break beneath the bottom card. You’re going to do a buckle-less
buckle count to make the packet appear to be exactly the size the participant called for. In your
mind, focus on one less than the number of cards named. That’s the only thing you need to
remember.

Let’s say, for example, the participant called for 27 cards. You cut 30 cards, at the breather (or
you cut 29 or 31 or 33 cards, perhaps, without the breather). You’ll focus on the number right
before the named number, in this case 26.

75
 1 2

3 4

Thumb over cards one at a time from your

left hand into your right hand, taking each
one beneath the next. Allow the cards to
gather in your right hand in a loose pile,
getting ever more messy as you add cards
to it (Photo 1). The rhythm of each count is
that both hands move in toward each other
to transfer a card each time, and then move
away from each other between takes. You’re
establishing that both hands are in motion
during the counting. 5

On the count of 26, you’ll take all the cards

above the break, leaving just one card in the
left hand. How you take this block of cards is important. You place the block under the packet
in your right hand but jogged to the left for a little less than an inch (Photo 2). It should be
clearly visible, and you don’t need to rush this moment. The block immediately blends in with
the cards around it. The second the block makes contact with the cards in the right hand, the
right fingers pull all the cards under the top one to the right, hidden under the spread (Photos
3 & 4). This gives all the cards showing in the right hand a clear, thin edge. There appears to
be nothing concealed. In a continuing action, flick the last card against your left fingers as you

76
count, “Twenty-seven.” Pause at this moment and invert both hands, to show the singularity
of the 27th card and the underside of the right hand’s packet (Photo 5). The extra cards are
visible on the face of the packet, but they blend perfectly with the counted cards.

Square the packet and replace it on top of the deck in the participant’s hands, and then take
back all the cards in your hand. Time for the
last phase.

Take the deck back and obtain a break beneath

the top three cards with a pinky count. You
must now reverse these three cards, where
they are, as you turn the deck face up; use any
sleight you think fits. I prefer Ken Krenzel’s
Mechanical Reverse31 (Photos 6-8), but if I
sense angles will be a problem, I may substitute
a different move. These three cards are now
face down on the bottom of the face-up deck.
Say, “So far I’ve demonstrated how to estimate by 6
look, and then by feel. Now it’s time to show you the
ultimate move: long distance.” Place the deck into
the participant’s hand face up and cut at the
Jack of Spades, which is now the lowermost
breather in the face-up deck. It’s exactly forty-
two cards from the top. When you lift up, the
Jack of Spades will be the face card of the
packet held by the participant. If you’re not
working with the Particle System, just cut
somewhere near the bottom.

“Since this is about going long distance, I’m going

7
to ask you to take five steps back, so you’re very far
away from me and my cards. Good.” Allow her to
comply, stepping away from everyone else.

“When I look at this packet I see…” Stare at the

side of the deck as if analyzing the size. If
you’re not using the Particle System, glimpse
the face card of this packet. “…forty-five cards.”
This is important: you don’t call out the actual
number of cards you hold; you add three to
that number or the big ending won’t make
sense. In the Particle Stack, there are forty-two
cards in your hand and ten in the participant’s 8
hand. But we’ll miscall and then mis-count this
amount.

31. See Krenzel, Ken, Mechanical Reverse, Epilogue, 1975, p. 251.

77
 9 10

“But I’m not trying to guess the number of cards in my hand. I’m trying to guess the number of cards left
in your hand. If I have forty-five cards, it would leave you with seven. Let’s see! But I want you to count
like they do in casinos, because it will be easier for everyone to see.” I’ve adapted both the technique
and dialogue from Paul Harris’ classic “Las Vegas Leaper.”32 He uses the rationale of counting
“like they do in a casino,” which is absolutely not true. I’ve simply added that this strange
method of counting is easier to see from a distance, which is true. Nobody has ever protested.

Instruct the participant to count the cards from where she stands, and emphasize the distance
between you and her. Gesturing with the cards in your own hand, explain that she should take
the first card into her other hand and count, “One,” and then turn it face down and place it
under the packet. Now instruct her to take the next card and count, “Two,” turning this card
face down and tucking it under the packet. You have to go slowly in the beginning or you risk
her seeing the face-down cards at the bottom of her packet. Once she’s counted a couple of
cards at your pace, ask her to keep going. She’ll cycle through the face-up cards and count
seven, despite the fact that she actually holds ten. Note that you don’t actually count your cards
fully in this way; you demonstrate with a card or two and then undo what you’ve done as she
continues to count.

Make sure to “sell” this part as an effect. You just completed another impressive act of
estimation. Now for the big finish. “But the most difficult way of cheating is long distance. Suppose
I want to ADD three cards to your pile. It would look like this.” Count three cards into your right
hand and display them face down. Place them in a slightly spread condition back in your left
hand, perpendicular to the deck and pinned into place at their outer left corner (Photo 9).
Pretend to grasp the group of cards directly into a palm position in your right hand, but as
your right hand covers the cards, the left thumb pivots them flush onto the deck (Photo 10).
The deck remains still and perpendicular during this Tent Vanish, and the right hand moves
away, slightly cupped, as if holding the cards.

Pretend to toss the cards toward the participant, showing the right hand empty. “You just counted
seven cards yourself, all the way over there. Without coming a step closer to us, count the cards again.”

32. See Harris, Paul, Las Vegas Close-up, “Las Vegas Leaper Count,” p. 113.

78
Now ask the participant to count the cards again as she did before. That is, she takes the face-
down card on top of the packet and turns it face up on the count of “One,” and then tucks it
beneath the packet. She continues in this fashion until all ten cards have been counted. You’ll
find the participant is often in such disbelief that she may count again, this time hand to hand
with the cards, which is fine. The order remains the same.

RESET
Take back the participant’s cards and run the lowermost three cards singly back to the top;
these are the top three cards of the deck. Now you can plop this packet on top of the deck and
you’re back in stack origin.

COMMENTS
“Invisible Touch” is a reminder that sometimes combining very basic tools—in this case, a
glimpse, a false count, and a Cards Across ruse—can sometimes yield a routine that is stronger
than the sum of its parts.

79
 Back in Time
This is my personalization of Guy Hollingworth’s Triumph
routine,33 which I realized is entirely possible without changing
the order of any cards. Routines like this—that make no use of
the stack whatsoever but maintain the order—are important if
you intend to perform a full set within the Particle Stack (or
any memorized deck). We’ll return to this sort of “stack-sustainable” magic
several times throughout The Particle System.

EFFECT
The magician offers to simulate a time travel experience with a deck of cards. A selected card
is lost in the pack and spectators are invited to take a mental picture of the exact position of
the magician’s hands, which are situated in a particular way. Then the cards are shuffled face
up into face down. Magically, all the cards straighten out except for the selected card. At the
end of the trick the magician brings the spectators back to the exact moment of their mental
picture, with everything just as it was.

PERFORMANCE
Begin by cutting the pack somewhere—it’s best not to begin from stack origin so you don’t
overexpose the Ace of Clubs on bottom. “I’ve become very interested in the idea of time travel, and
what it would look like through the lens of a magician. So let me try to take all of you back in time.
Please, take any card, but remove it very, very slowly.” Spread the cards from hand to hand and
extend the spread toward a participant in front of you. Allow her to remove a card slowly, but
ask her to stop once the card has been withdrawn from the spread. Break the spread at this
point, holding a spread of cards in each hand. Suppose she has withdrawn the Jack of Clubs.

“Freeze right there! If we’re going to travel back in time, we need a moment to go back to. This is our
moment,” you say. “See the way I’m holding a spread of cards in each hand and you’re holding a card
in this corner? The way he’s looking at me. The way he doesn’t care. Everything about this moment!
Take a mental picture of this exact moment” (Photo 1). Emphasize the configuration of the cards
in your hands, as well as the way the participant is holding her card. I always point to someone
with a stoic look on their face to deliver the line, “...the way he doesn’t care.” It gets a laugh at this

33. See Hollingworth, Guy, “A Triumph Routine,” Drawing Room Deceptions, 1999, p. 251.

80
 1 2

point. But at the end, when you repeat it, it’s very funny. Now as you move your hands apart
in a gesture, you will “accidentally” drop the face card in your right-hand spread, the Three of
Diamonds, onto the table or floor. “Oops, the way I dropped the Three of Diamonds. See? Everything
about this moment.” Don’t oversell this little wrinkle. You’ll drop the same card at the end, again
by “accident,” and it’s such a strong detail. But it’s ruined if it feels even the slightest bit staged.

Retrieve the dropped card (in this case the Three of Diamonds, but this card will change every
time) and replace it back on the face of the right-hand spread. Square the cards in the left-hand
spread and get a break under the top card of this portion, in this case the Four of Hearts.
Extend the left-hand packet toward the participant and ask her to replace her card on top. “Your
card goes in exactly the same place you took it from.” Reassemble the pack, maintaining the break
below the Four of Hearts. The selection is the second card above the break.

Briefly transfer the deck into the right hand for a moment, transferring the break to the right
thumb. Now grasp the deck from above with the left hand (Photo 2). Move the right hand
under the deck and grasp the cards below the break with the right thumb at the inner end and
the right fingers along the outer end (Photo 3). Separate the hands and move them both next
to each other palm down, in preparation for an in-the-hands riffle shuffle; the left packet is
face down while the right packet is face up (Photo 4). This rather specific transfer of grips is
actually quite fluid in practice, and it’s the most elegant way I’ve found to get into riffle shuffle
position without any ugly adjustments of either packet.

3 4

81
 5 6

7 8

9 10

Now execute a gentle riffle shuffle with the packets angled slightly toward yourself. Riffle off
the lowermost two cards of the left packet first. These will be the Four of Hearts and the Jack
of Clubs, the selection (Photo 5). Then riffle a few cards from the face-up, right packet, and then
shuffle normally, taking care that you drop the top, face-up card on the right packet last.

As in Hollingworth’s original, push the packets together by about half an inch, squared at
the ends but sidejogged from one another (Photo 6). This allows you to riffle upward to show,
clearly, that the cards are being shuffled face up into face down (Photo 7).

82
Holding the sidejogged packet from the ends
in the right hand, turn the hand palm up to
display the underside of the pack (Photo 8).
Turn the right hand palm down again and as
you apparently square the packet, with your
right hand grasp the two lowermost face-
down cards between your left thumb and first
finger and push them to the right so that they
align with the pile of face-up cards (Photos 9
11
& 10). This action is covered from above by
the sidejogged condition of the deck, and it
looks only as if you’re neatening the squared
condition of the cards.

Now you’ll apparently push the two sidejogged

packets square. Actually, you’ll perform
Hollingworth’s version of Vernon’s Triumph
Stripout.34 In this version, you’ll do it in the
hands rather than on the table, but the concept
is the same.

Hold the sidejogged deck from above in the 12

right hand, and grasp the rightmost packet
from beneath with the left thumb on the left
side and the right fingers along the right side.
Squeeze gently to begin to push the packets
together for another quarter inch or so (Photo
11). Note that the right first finger is curled on
top of the face-up card.

While it appears that you will continue pushing

the packets together until they are flush, you
actually slide just the top face-up card to the
left so that it is flush with the face-down packet.
The packets themselves remain separated 13

(Photos 12 & 13). You can do this slowly, bit

by bit, until the face-up card is completely
flush. Pause at this point, concealing the woven
condition of the two packets with the back
of your right hand (Photo 14). It appears the
cards are now squared and you can move your
left hand away for a moment. “We move forward
in time by changing the condition of the cards.
Now there are cards going up and down. Chaos in
the deck.”

14
34. See Vernon, Dai, “Triumph,” Stars of Magic, 1946, p. 24.
83
 15 16

17 18

Reach under the pack again and place your left little finger at the inner end and your left first
finger at the outer end, pinching the right, face-up packet in straddle grip. Your left hand
maneuvers the leftmost, face-down packet clockwise as your left hand rotates its packet counter-
clockwise, and you’ll find that the two packets unweave instantly and with little resistance
(Photo 15).

Bring the cards in the left hand forward and turn them over; this packet now consists of two
face-up cards (the Four of Hearts and the Jack of Clubs) on top of a face-down packet. At the
same time, turn your right hand palm up to display faces on both surfaces of its packet. Turn
the right hand palm down again so that there is one face-up card on top of a face-down packet
held from above in the right hand.

Place the right packet on top of the left packet, but obtain a break between the packets as you
transfer the deck into dealer’s grip in the left hand.

Now you’ll do a brief display to reinforce the topsy-turvy nature of the cards. Lift half the
cards above the break and replace them sidejogged about an inch, on top of the deck (Photo
16). This exposes a face-down card and a face-up card on top. Now lift up at the break and step
everything above the break about an inch to the right (Photo 17). Now you’re showing a face-up
card, a face-up card, and another face-up card. Finally, cut somewhere into the lower packet and

84
 19 20

step everything to the right again, to display one more face-down card (Photo 18). “Cards go in
all different directions. Some are face up and others are face down.”35

Split this stepped four-card packet so the lowermost two packets are held in the left hand and
the uppermost two packets are held in the right hand. To do this, place your left thumb on top
of the face-up card on top of the packet second from the bottom, and then separate the hands
(Photo 19). Allow the two packets in the left hand to coalesce and, in a continuing action, use
the stepped packets held in the right hand to lever the top card of the left hand’s pile face down
(Photo 20). Now assemble the deck by placing all the cards in the right hand on top of the cards
in the left hand.

“Now it’s time for time travel. We can use any card to take us back in time. Did you pick the Four of
Hearts by chance? No? That’s okay. We can still use the Four of Hearts.” Gesture to the top, face-up
card on the deck and then turn the double face down. Deal the top card (the selection) into your
right hand and then give it to the participant. But as soon as you hand it to her face down, you
give her instructions to wave this indifferent card over the cards in your hand. This way, she
will be too preoccupied to consider turning it over too soon and ruining your climax.

“Wave the card back and forth over the cards and you’ll cause every card to straighten out. Just like that.
Now faster, faster, faster.” As the participant waves the card over the deck, begin to spread the
cards between your hands to reveal that all the cards are now face down again. “We go back in
time. Back, back, back...until all the cards are face down.”

You will break the spread in the center of the deck so that your hands match the configuration
of the cards at the beginning of the routine, with a spread in each hand. But as you do so, execute

35. A small suggestion. Many magicians unknowingly demonstrate an unwanted magical power when they
perform “Triumph.” They narrate how cards are face up and face down, face-to-face and back-to-back as they cut
to them. But, of course, if you’re trying to communicate that the cards are in a truly random condition and out
of your control, you wouldn’t know exactly how the face-up and face-down cards were positioned as you cut to
them. Magicians recite these lines as they cut to the exact points that match their words. I would instead suggest
speaking more generally, and not matching your words to the exact cards. It just feels too “pat” to me, like a
sequence that is one step too rehearsed.

85
 a reverse cull, slipping the bottom card of the
pack to the right, along the underside of the
spread. Take this card, the Three of Diamonds
in this instance, onto the face of the right spread
as you separate the hands (Photo 21).

“We’ve gone back in time! Look at the cards in my

left hand and my right. The way he’s looking at me
again. The way he still doesn’t care.” The initial
effect will elicit a reaction, and this line—a
reference to the line you made at the beginning
21
of the trick—releases tension in a big laugh.
But there are two important beats to come.

“Everything is the same,” you say, and as you talk, release the face card of the right hand’s spread
so it falls face up, just as it did in the beginning of the routine. As soon as it falls, point it out.
“Even the Three of Diamonds fell again, in the same spot, exactly as before.”

Now slow down the pace to deliver the last line. “But if we traveled back in time you wouldn’t be
holding the Four of Hearts. You would be holding the card you picked. What was your card? The Jack
of Clubs? Turn it over.”

As she turns over the card in her hand, you say the last line: “The trick never happened.”

RESET
Replace the selection on top and then place the “dropped” card on top of that. Now everything
is still in order.

Bigger Back in Time

I recently did a run of formal close-up shows with the Particle System, and I wanted to perform
“Back in Time.” Since the group was fairly big, I devised a version with an extra ending. This
version uses three selections instead of one, and at the end, I point out that the three selections
make up the exact time right now. In other words, I invite the audience to check their phones:
it’s 8:37 (for example). And the chosen cards are an Eight, a Three, and a Seven.

The only difference in handling is that you must force the three selections. To do this, I look at
the time and add three minutes to it. So if it’s 7:42, aim for 7:45.

Cut any card to the top of the deck that matches the last digit of your time. In our example, you
would cut any Five to the top of the deck. Let’s suppose it’s the Five of Clubs. Now cull any
Seven and any Four, and slip them to the rear (top) of the deck. The order of the force cards
doesn’t matter as long as all three are on top of the deck.

86
Cut the pack to centralize the three force cards and hold a break. Now force one on each of
three participants using your favorite method. A riffle force works well here, as does a simple
timing force of spreading cards from hand to hand and asking each person to call “stop” as you
take cards into your right hand. After handing out the last of the three force cards, break the
spread at this point (which, if you’re following along, is between the Nine of Diamonds and
the Ten of Hearts).

The presentation is the same as above, as is the “mistaken” dropped card. You drop the Nine
of Diamonds “by accident,” and call attention to it. Replace the Nine on the face of the right
hand’s spread. Now openly spread over the top three cards from the left spread and take them
under the Nine of Diamonds. As you close the spread get a break beneath the packets and cut
at this point. This brings the Nine of Diamonds fourth from the face of the deck.

Ask each participant to return their cards into different parts of the deck. Spread the cards from
hand to hand and pause for the first, right-most participant to insert her card into the spread.
Cull her card under the spread and continue spreading some cards and then break the spread
again. This time invite the next participant, to the left of the first, to insert her card. Cull the
second card under the spread and keep spreading over more cards and break the spread a final
time for the left-most participant to insert her card. Slip all three culled selections above the
bottom card of the deck. The order of the selections is the left-most participant’s card second
from bottom, the center participant’s card third from bottom, and the right-most participant’s
card fourth from the bottom.

Spread over half the cards into your right hand and turn them face up. Square up these face-up
cards in your right hand in preparation for an in-the-hands riffle shuffle. The cards in the left
hand are gripped in the same way but held face down.

In this case (which differs from the above handling), you now riffle four cards from the face-down
pile in your left hand by letting them flick off of your left thumb. Now shuffle off normally
with cards from each hand, letting at least one face-up card fall last. The sidejogged condition
of the cards is the same as already described.

As in the previous handling, you can show the cards fairly on all sides at this point. Secretly
maneuver the block of four cards to the right so they align with the face-up cards jogged to the
right. And as explained already, pretend to square the cards, secretly shifting the top face-up
card (Ten of Spades in our example) so it aligns with the left-jogged, face-down cards.

Strip out the cards as explained, flop them over, and replace them on top, taking a break between
the packets. Do the same four-stepped display to show face-up and face-down cards, and then
flip over the Ten of Spades as you square the stepped condition of the cards.

Cut the bottom two cards to the top of the deck. The condition of the cards will be: two face-
down cards, one face-up card, followed by the three selections face up, followed by the rest of
the deck face down.

87
 Openly turn the top two cards face up and then tilt the deck toward yourself so the faces of
the cards are out of audience view. Thumb over the top two cards (Four of Spades and Ten of
Hearts) and then take the next card, the Ten of Diamonds, and deal it in front of these two
cards, so the order runs: Ten of Diamonds, Four of Spades, Ten of Hearts, followed by the
three selections. Now spread over all six cards and obtain a break beneath them. This sounds
complex, but it’s done in less than a couple of seconds, and ensures that the cards will end back
in stack order. Square the cards again, maintaining the break, and lower your hand.

Here’s the only place the presentation is modified. “This is where we go back in time. Before we do
that, do any of you see your card here? How about this one? Or this one?” As you talk, spread over
the top two cards to show three cards, in a spread, face up on top of the deck. None of the
participants will see their selection. “Are you sure? Good.”

Now flip over all the cards above the break together; it looks like you’re turning over the three
cards you’ve shown. Actually, you’re turning over six as three. Immediately deal over the top
card to the right-most participant, and then the new top card to the participant in the middle,
and the last card to the participant on the left. They don’t know it, but each participant is now
holding their own card.

Continue as before, asking them to wave the cards over the spread. Spread the cards between
your hands, showing that you have, indeed, gone back in time to a point where all the cards
were face down. Slip the bottom card the Nine of Diamonds onto the face of the right hand’s
spread as you break the deck into two spreads (this, too, is already explained above). Now as
you gesture with both hands you can release this card so it falls just as it did at the beginning
of the trick.

Invite each participant to turn over their cards to reveal that each card has changed into their
selection, in their hands. You have, as promised, gone back in time.

For the added climax, take back each card and toss them face up onto the table. Casually check
your phone. This effect takes a little more than two minutes, so it’s likely you’ll be exactly on
target. If the clock isn’t yet showing 7:45, you may have to talk for a few seconds until you’re
confident it has changed. Then invite everyone to check their phones and call out the time.
Draw attention to the three selections and reorder them so the time matches perfectly.

RESET
The deck is back in order except for the three “time” cards that make up the selections. But if
you drop them on the face with the last digit at the rear (in our example this would mean the
Five of Clubs would be dropped on the face with the other two force cards in front of it), then
you need only reinsert two cards into their positions. This is easily managed as you segue into
your next effect.

88
 COMMENTS
The presentation used here is the best presentation for “Triumph” I have ever encountered, and
it comes from the fertile mind of Jay Sankey.36 For years I have performed my own in-the-hands
version called “Back in Time”37 from a shuffled deck. This is my attempt to replicate that effect
while sustaining the stack.

Designing material for a stack has taught me a lot about restraint, or what Henning Nelms calls
the Conservation Principle. Having a stack is such a powerful tool; the urge is to use all the
features all the time. The obvious question here is why we would perform this “Triumph” with
a selected card when it can almost as easily be done with a named card. Fair point.

My take is this: finding a thought-of card is a singularly powerful effect. In fact, it should be the
effect. In “Triumph” the effect is magically straightening a deck of cards. That’s just as effective
with a chosen card as it is with a thought-of card.38

Speaking of finding thought-of cards…that’s up next.

36. See Jay, Joshua and Andi Gladwin, The Definitive Sankey: Volume 1, 2012, p. 387.
37. See “Back in Time,” MAGIC Magazine, November 2008.
38. I have more to say on the topics of restraint on p. 270 as well as thought-of cards on p. 90.

89
 Thoughts on
Thought-of Cards
When I was a teenager, Michael Close came through my
hometown of Canton, Ohio, to lecture. After the lecture, we
huddled around him as he leaned against the wall toying with a
pack of cards. He pointed at me to name a card.

I said, “Five of Spades,” because that’s what I always say.

I looked at the pack and he pointed to the top card. “Turn it over,” he said. I
did. And I’ll never forget the way I felt.

That’s the power of the memorized deck. For all the floating keys and faro checks involved in
stack work, it’s hard to top the immediacy of what Michael Close has dubbed “riffing.”39 Riffing
with named cards has been my primary focus with a memorized deck, and I have some general
thoughts that apply to all stack users. Riffing was my primary concern when designing the
Particle System. This is where you’ll see its features come alive.

All the published material on riffing that I’ve read pivots on the same two principles: estimation
and outs. Mine does not. I have absolutely no issue with this approach, and I spent nearly
twenty years using estimation and outs.

Perhaps you’re familiar with the concept. Someone names a card and you estimate where that
card is in the pack. You cut as close as you can to that stack number, glimpse where you’re at,
and make adjustments as necessary. If you perform this regularly, you get good quite quickly.
You also develop “outs” for when the card is second or third or fourth from the bottom, and
learn what to do when the card is a few cards away from the top.

39. Technically, he called it “jazzin’,” and then “jazzing.” But now it’s “riffing.” The rumor is that in his next ebook
he’ll call it “freebasing.”
90
I spent enough time working within the confines of that system to enjoy the great breaks and
endure the bad ones, and to see the flaws. What follows is my attempt to correct those flaws.
However, in no way am I criticizing the fine work of other innovators who developed the
“estimation and outs” approach. The following section—which is the largest and most detailed
in this book—will chronicle my approach to riffing. Some of this is unique to the Particle
System, but much of it can be easily adapted to any memorized deck.

Riffing in the Particle System

We begin at an extreme advantage in the Particle System. Every card is marked, so we can
simply forget about glimpsing and re-glimpsing, and, if we’re having an off night, re-re-
glimpsing.

In the Particle System, the pack is segmented into five evenly distributed groups of cards.
When someone names a card, it’s never more than five cards away from a breather card. This
means it’s not only easy for us to get near any named card, but it’s easy for us to direct a
participant to cut to a desired location.40

There’s a mythology that surrounds riffing with a memorized deck. Magicians love to tell
stories about performances, under pressure, when a participant names the top card in the stack,
or when two people name cards right next to each other. These moments make for great stories.
What doesn’t make for great stories are all the cards that get spelled to, or asking someone to
cut...and then name a small number...and then asking someone else for another small number...
and then adding those numbers together...and then spelling that number. I’ve been there before:
I spell to someone’s name, switching to a second-deal halfway through when I realize that
“Melissa” has two S’s. The reward of improvising with a memorized deck is getting lucky. But
when you improvise, you get unlucky, too.

I don’t rely on estimation or luck anymore, and I don’t improvise. Instead, I have a small toolbox
of revelations, and every one of them is strong enough to have impact as a stand-alone trick. I
handle every named card in basically the same way, which takes out a lot of the uncertainty and
all of the risk. And the best part?

No spelling.

40. Juan Tamariz’s pioneering “Mnemonicosis” is all about getting a participant to locate her own named card. This
system allows us to explore this concept with even more accuracy and control. See Tamariz, Juan, “Mnemonicosis,”
Mnemonica, 2004, p. 98.

91
 One and Done
There’s a little more to the story I opened this chapter with, when Michael Close dazzled me
by causing my thought-of card to appear on top of the deck. He asked me to name a card and
then, an instant later, showed me that it was on top of the deck. I remember exactly how I felt
at that moment.

But I also remember how I felt a moment later, when he turned to the person next to me, and
did more or less the same trick for him. And then he did it for every magician in the huddle,
pulling a card from his pocket, spelling to someone’s name, and then spelling the name of the
card. Oh, I thought, so that’s how that works.

Michael Close remains one of my favorite magicians: an innovator, philosopher, performer, and
writer. I recount this not to criticize his work, which has greatly shaped my own thinking, but
to make this point: riffing has the power to create lasting memories, but only if we let it.

Thus we come to the most fundamental question of riffing with a memorized deck: it’s not as
much “How?” but “How many?”

I spent years riffing with two, three, even five thought-of cards, and this is an approach Michael
Close espouses and has used to great effect: “A spectator will name a card,” writes Close. “I
will find that card in a magical way. I will then repeat this basic effect with two or three more
spectators.”41 I don’t dispute the viability of this approach, but I’ve come to believe that some
restraint is better here. Magically finding a thought-of card is among the purest effects possible
with playing cards. I have seen little evidence that this trick improves with repetition, and Dai
Vernon agreed. Speaking about “The Trick That Cannot Be Explained”:42 “It is most essential
that the trick is never repeated,” he writes, “unless handled very shrewdly.”

In my own experience, the more thought-of cards I find, the less special it is. One could argue
that finding each person’s card is special to them, but this is contrary to every experience I have
had in riffing with a memorized deck. One is a miracle. Two is impressive card handling. Three
is we get it.

The reason it’s so alluring to riff with multiple cards is that it’s fun for us. Performing magic
is usually such a rehearsed, calculated act. Riffing is free-flowing. It’s a rush to think on your
feet one card after another. It’s a tennis match with your audience, deflecting balls as they’re
bounced into your court. Boing. Boing. Boing. Darwin Ortiz refers to this as the Magician’s
Mentality43; just because it’s interesting for the magician doesn’t mean it’s the right decision
for the audience.

41. See Close, Michael, The Road to Riffsville, 2018, p. 40.

42. See Ganson, Lewis, Dai Vernon’s More Inner Secrets of Card Magic, 1960, p. 76.
43. See Ortiz, Darwin, Designing Miracles, 2006, p. 49.

92
Paul Vigil expresses a similar sentiment:

This is one of the reasons I shy away from jazz magic. Free-styling with your
colleagues can be enjoyable, but I don’t believe you will always achieve the intellectual
roller-coaster ride you should be giving your public audiences unless you are certain
of the path and the destination.44

How many thought-of cards we find isn’t just a question of theater. It’s also a question of
method; the more cards you find, the more opportunities you give spectators to catch on to the
idea that you know where all the cards are located. If you execute ample false shuffles and locate
one person’s thought-of card instantly, there is simply no possible explanation for spectators.
I know because I remember being a spectator. But when you go “down the line,” popping named
cards out of the deck, you edge ever closer to the method. It’s not a stretch for a spectator to
think (or say), Are those cards in some kind of order?

At its core, riffing is a form of the multiple outs principle: we react depending on a participant’s
choice. A cardinal rule of this principle is that you don’t use it more than once for the same
group. To me, going “down the line” of spectators to find named cards makes it increasingly
clear that you’re changing course depending on what card is named. Once that happens, most
of the impact is gone.

At the risk of overstating my case, I’ll give you the defining reason I find just one card, not
several: build. With one card, I control the dramatic build. When you rely on improvisational
riffing, you have no control over what cards will be named when. Someone might name the card
second to the top. Great! A quick color change and you’ve caused the named card to appear. But
what if the next two cards are at positions 34 and 45? Whatever you do to find these cards will
be compared to how you found the previous cards. The dramatic build is out of your control.
You can’t be certain the last card named will be better than the others.

The dramatic build is always the same if you focus on one thought-of card. The way you find it
might depend on which card is named or where it’s at in your stack. But without anything else
to compare it to, the trick will have maximum impact.

The last point I’d like to make clear here is that I’m not advocating for some rigid rule of only
riffing on one named card. What I’m advocating for is that we give the appearance of finding just
one card. I will sometimes improvise to find several cards in a performance. But I will take care
to space them out between other effects, and to make sure I define them as distinctly different.

44. See Vigil, Paul, Classic Fantastic, 2014, p. 99.

93
 Technique vs. Premise
Most memorized deck users think of riffing in terms of technique; nearly all creative energy
is spent on new variations on the cut-glimpse-adjust style of approach. Most often, magicians
provide no particular cover or misdirection while riffing. They just do it in a casual manner and
hope that this tinkering with the deck isn’t noticed. Maybe. Maybe not.

I suggest a shift in thinking from technique to premise. If you start with the premise of the
trick—the plot of what will happen in the spectators’ minds—you unlock all sorts of new
possibilities for technique.

As an example, let’s start with a premise. Consider the “Imaginary Card” plot, in which a
participant play-acts with you in removing an imaginary card from the cards in your hands, and
then she announces whatever card she imagines that she’s holding. This is just a fancy way of
asking someone to name a card, but the premise provides us with physical actions. They anchor
the mental task of thinking of and naming a card with a visual action. I think this is a very
useful improvement, and a more engaging way of generating a named card. More importantly,
this premise provides both mental and physical misdirection as we secretly control the card.

Within the construct of this premise, it’s perfectly natural for you to control the named card from a
spread position because the deck is already spread. This (hopefully) forgettable action of spreading
the cards is justified by the intriguing premise of pantomiming an imaginary card trick with a
participant. And it’s decidedly easier and more precise to control a named card from a spread deck
than with estimation. You’ll read my handling of “The Imaginary Card Trick” on p. 129.

By thinking of riffing in terms of premise, we also make each “improvisation” different from
everything else you’re doing. By making each instance of riffing thematically different, it doesn’t
invite comparison. For example, consider two ways of generating a named card. One way is
to simply ask someone, “Name any card.” Another way would be to assemble a card’s identity
from three different people, with three different questions: “Andi, do you prefer red or black? Red?
George, Hearts or Diamonds? Diamonds? Great. Mark, name any Diamond.” To us, these pathways
are essentially the same, but I would argue that they have a different feel, presentationally, to an
audience, and therefore they can be perceived quite different in effect.

Experience will help you discover exactly how far apart to space each “riff,” but my feeling is
after two or three unrelated effects it’s possible to reset their expectations and find a thought-
of card in a new way.

What follows is a collection of pathways to finding a named card near-instantly. But each has
the benefit of feeling different to an audience. Here’s an overview of what we’ll cover:

Marked Riffing (next page): You find a named card with a color change that almost happens in
a participant’s hands.

Flutter (p. 101): A game of make-believe, ending with a named card appearing where it’s least
expected—on the ground in front of the group.

94
The Particle Pack Revelations (p. 102): If you’re using the Particle Pack, there are a handful of
named cards that can be revealed with hidden artwork and messages. You might dismiss these
sorts of revelations as “cute”—I used to, until I tried them with conviction and in isolation from
other revelations.

The Imaginary Card Trick (p. 105): The key difference here is that the participant finds her
own card.

Then, at the end of this book, we’ll explore my very favorite way of using a memorized deck,
which builds on all of these concepts.

Let’s Riff
Let’s talk technique.

There are several cards that are self-evident. If the top, second-from-top, bottom, or second-
from-bottom card is named, I reveal them in whatever manner feels appropriate: turning over
the top card, a double turnover, or a color change. There are eight other “freebie” cards in the
Particle System: these are the four bottom-cutting breathers and the cards that follow them.
If one of these is named, I place the deck on the table, look away from the deck entirely to
build the drama, and then dead-cut to the named card. That’s a total of twelve cards—nearly
a quarter of the pack—without so much as a difficult sleight or a mental calculation. If any of
these cards are named, you’ll get as close to an ideal magic moment as I’ve encountered with a
memorized deck.

If a card is named that falls somewhere else in the pack, I have two methods to find the card,
and I will often use one or the other, and sometimes both in tandem.

Marked Riffing
After spending twenty years estimating, glimpsing, and correcting, using marked cards was a
game-changer. It’s the difference between navigating your way home with a folding roadmap
and using GPS.

If you know the order of every card in the pack and every card is marked, you can obtain a break
above any named card in two seconds flat. Try it. The learning curve is almost immediate, and
this technique is faster and more reliable than “estimation and outs.”

The only thing this technique requires is motivation for spreading the cards between your
hands. Here’s mine: once the card is named, I spread the pack to the approximate location of
the named card. I don’t look down until I know I’m close. I say, “If I asked you to pick a card, like
this, you might think that I could see where you took it from or how you put it back.” As I speak, I look
down long enough to locate the named card and get a break above it. I look up again, and in
this moment I execute a classic pass, bringing the card to the top. “But you thought of that card.
It could be anywhere, right?” And it’s done.

95
 In this case, my favorite revelation is to turn over a double to show a contrasting indifferent
card (note that in the Particle Stack any double will contrast in color and value with the card
above it). Then I turn the double back face down and take the named card in my right hand.
After some buildup, I reveal the change. I have more to say about the choreography of how I
reveal this card, but for now, let’s stay focused on technique.

Breather Riffing
Here’s a technique that relies on the four breather cards situated throughout the pack. When
a card is named, quickly and secretly cut at whatever breather card falls directly above it. For
example, if the Ten of Spades (14) is named, you would quickly cut or pass at the Jack of Spades
(10). If the Nine of Diamonds (35) is named, you would cut at the breather that falls at 30, the
Six of Spades. Stick to this rule and there’s never any calculation. If you had to determine the
breather card closest to the named card, half the time it would fall to the breather beneath the
named card, which would send the named card near the bottom of the deck. Now we’re dealing
with twice as many “outs” and scenarios. What follows is the same handling for any named card.

Now the named card is somewhere within the top nine cards of the pack. As explained, if it’s
the top or second card from the top, I’ll reveal the named card with a color change or double
turnover. If it falls deeper, proceed as follows.

Thumb over cards from the top of the deck into the right hand, one at a time, to show that
the card isn’t on top. Turn your head away when you do this. “I just want to be clear that the card
you named isn’t on top, right?” Count as you
take the cards, keeping track of when you
approach the selection. You must take all the
cards above the selection in your right hand,
leaving just the selection face down on top.

In a continuing action turn the left hand

palm down (which renders its packet face
up) and point to the face card of the left
hand’s cards with the cards in the right hand
(Photo 1). “And it’s not on the bottom, I hope?”
The hand position here is important, though
it may seem innocuous. You have posed two 1
questions that require the participant’s
attention. Your head is turned while you
ask. Simultaneously, turn your head back toward the spectators as you turn both hands palm up.
But as you do this, openly deposit the cards in the right hand on the face of the deck. You’re not
hiding this action from the spectators, but you’re splitting the attention three ways: by asking
them questions, by turning your head back to them, and by moving both hands together. In this
commotion, it’s hard to follow that you’ve replaced some cards in a different position.

Now continue quickly and with intention. “We’ll use any card,” you say as you turn over a double
on top of the deck. “The Five of Clubs is fine. Don’t take your eyes off of this card. In fact, touch

96
it.” Now turn the double face down and deal the top card, the thought-of card, into your right
hand. “Touch the back. And now, say the card you’re thinking of aloud.” Turn over the card to effect
the change.

This process works the same way to shift any small number of cards from top to bottom.
Obviously, it’s more cumbersome to thumb over eight cards one by one. But with the right
pacing, you can make this look quite natural.

“Pacing” is the key word here. You have to treat this transfer of cards as a preamble before the
effect starts, rather than as part of the trick. Your inner monologue should be something like
this: before I can show you this REALLY cool moment, let’s make sure your card isn’t accidentally on
top. You hurry through a quick check on top and bottom, and then you stand up straight, slow
down, and animate your voice to make a named card appear.

Maximum Contrast
Although mentioned briefly in the preliminary discussion about this arrangement, the salient
point about all “jazzing” techniques is that every card is surrounded by one of maximum
contrast. No matter what card is named, the card next to it is of opposite color. This may not
sound like a major feature if you don’t have much experience in this arena, but those who have
riffed with a named card know that more often than not, the outcome involves a color change
or double turnover. You know, for example, a black Queen will change into the thought-of red
Two, or that the Jack of Hearts will melt into the Three of Spades. This contrast guarantees
the best possible outcome of any double lift out or color change you may wish to use.

Putting It All Together

How you combine Marked Riffing and Breather Riffing is, of course, at your discretion. Suppose
the Four of Spades is named. The 38th card is troublesome, because when we cut at the breather
at 30, we’re still eight cards away. Thumbing over eight cards isn’t ideal, so in this case I might
cut at the breather at 30 and then sight the Four of Spades by its marking. Then I can turn my
head away and take all the cards above the named card together, in a fan in the right hand. I can
deposit them on the face as already explained.

97
 Pick. See. Say. Think.
Here’s an inconvenient truth: it’s unclear to most laymen that a named card trick is
better than a picked card trick. For all the work we put into memorizing stacks and
classic passes, you’ll find that the distinction between the two is often more impressive
to us than it is to them. This is a problem.

Here’s another problem: most laymen are disappointed when asked to say aloud the
card they’re thinking of. “Name the card you’re thinking of,” is most often met with, “You
want me just to tell you?” Sometimes it’s even more blunt: “Aren’t you supposed to tell
me?” This is also a problem.

To us magicians, there is a world of difference between picking, seeing, saying, and

thinking of a card. There isn’t much difference in the minds of our spectators. At least
not until we point it out.

We have data to back this up. I helped design a study at Georgia Tech University,
alongside Matt Baker, Max Lukian, Thackery Brown, and Paulina Maxim, that tested
the impact of thought-of cards and picked cards.

Common wisdom in magic (particularly as we live in the midst of a memorized-deck

craze) is that thought-of, named cards are nearly always stronger for audiences than
chosen cards. This is certainly true for magicians, since freely naming a card obviates
any kind of force. But most magic isn’t intended to fool knowledgeable magicians. For
laymen, we wondered, is it really stronger to find someone’s named card or a chosen
card?

We designed a test that would yield insights into the think-a-card/pick-a-card debate.
We created a series of videos, each one identical to the others except for particular
altered variables. Each viewer (out of the hundreds surveyed) watched only one trick
video, so their impression of the performance would be authentic and untainted by
inevitable comparisons. In some videos, the magician divined the spectator’s physically
chosen card. In others, the magician divined a card merely thought of.

To our surprise, there was no significant difference in impact between pick-a-card and
think-a-card tricks. In fact, technically chosen cards scored marginally better than
think-a-card effects, but only by the slightest margin. Since think-a-card tricks nearly
always require far more elaborate and difficult methods, this comes as a particular
surprise. When asked to recall the details of the performance, those who watched
the pick-a-card versions were able to describe what they saw with more clarity and
confidence than those who tried to recall the think-a-card trick.

98
 Not all card tricks are created equal, of course, and this data doesn’t suggest that we
scrap any think-a-card material. But it’s clear that think-a-card tricks are not always
favorable to pick-a-card tricks. In fact, when all other factors are equal, it seems we’re
sometimes better off having cards chosen. Independent studies by Gustav Kuhn and
The Jerx seem to echo these results.

The way a spectator perceives these differences in chosen, thought-of, and named cards
is largely a matter of the picture we paint. Our words do make a difference here. The
script matters.

It’s impossible to get into the minds of our audience because each mind is likely to
interpret things a little differently. Some spectators might immediately latch on to the
logic of how a thought-of card is fairer than a chosen one. But others—most others,
I think—need this pointed out. The situation is made muddier if we ask someone
just to look at a card in a spread, or name the first card that comes into their mind.
If we assume that a spectator doesn’t understand forces or controls and that our
technique is sound, choosing a card is creating a secret. She knows something that
you, the performer, don’t know. We know that a chosen card can be glimpsed or forced
or controlled to the top, but this may not occur to a spectator unless we point it out.
When a spectator is asked to think of a card, this is also creating a secret—but one that
is ruined when she is then asked to name her thought-of card aloud.

It seems to me that the solution to these problems is one of reframing. We must

educate the spectators on why the way they’re thinking or touching or picking or
seeing is the fairest possible way in that moment.

The good news is that unless we’re performing for magicians, our spectators are mostly
blank slates. They haven’t considered the problem of thought-of cards vs. chosen cards
because this isn’t a problem to them. Getting their kids to soccer practice is a problem.
Getting to the grocery store before it closes is a problem. Whether or not naming a
thought-of card is weak or strong is not a problem they will have considered. There’s
an opportunity to imprint them with our own solution, if what we say sounds logical.

Presentation for Thought-of Card

Here, then, is my script for riffing with the Particle System. We’ve already gone over the
technique, so here we can focus entirely on how our words inform their thoughts.

While executing a series of false shuffles and cuts, I set up what’s going to happen. “I’ve asked
you to pick cards already. But someone once pointed out to me that if you pick a card, I might be able to
see the card or where it goes. But the ultimate card trick would be to find a card you’re just thinking of.”
I cut the cards back to stack origin and proceed with more intensity.

99
 “When someone thinks of a card, you can tell a lot about the way they think. Think of one…now.” This
is a lovely line—a smart turn-of-phrase that causes eyebrows to raise every time I say it. And
it’s used with permission from Luke Jermay, who uses it in a marked deck routine.45

Now continue. “Visualize that card in your mind, and when you’re ready to be amazed, say it out loud
so everyone knows which one you thought of.” Let’s unpack this. The point of this dialogue is to
minimize the chance you’ll be interrupted by the participant with some comment about not
wanting to say the card aloud. You make it clear that she is naming her card for the benefit of
the others around her, not for you. Psychologically, I’m positioning it so that any hesitance to
name her card will be an obstruction for them, rather than for me. She might not care about
making our job more difficult, but she wants her loved ones and friends to be able to enjoy
whatever is about to happen.

Note the line, “…when you’re ready to be amazed, say it out loud…” You promise that when she
names her card, amazement will follow. I’ve tried a lot of approaches to get a participant to
name a thought-of card reliably without any resistance. I find this one works best.

Whatever card she names, I immediately act as if I didn’t hear her. “Sorry, which one?” This
gambit gives you an extra two or three seconds to find the card and that’s an invaluable “free”
gift. After all, how can you manipulate the cards if you still aren’t sure which one she thought
of ?46 If you choose to riff as I do, with just one card, there’s nothing suspicious about not
hearing which card someone names. But I’ve seen magicians go down a line of spectators, and
after every person names a card, the performer asks them to repeat it. Good magician, they’re
probably thinking, but he should get a hearing aid.

Under cover of this line, I control their named card to the top using the methods already
described.

As soon as she clarifies which card she thought of, I follow it with another question: “And are
you right- or left-handed?” We’re buying more time here, in an equally subtle way. First we act
as though we didn’t hear the card. Now we ask the participant a question, and follow it up with
a command. “Then hold out your right first finger.”

I don’t mean to dwell on every word, but it took me years to develop my particular system for
riffing, and these words were chosen carefully. Other memorized deck users have recognized
the value in following a named card request with another “disruption” question, but the others
that I’ve seen box you in to a specific effect.

For example, I’ve seen someone ask a participant to name a card, and then immediately
afterward they ask someone else to name a number. This is great…as long as you’re absolutely
committed to doing an Any-Card-at-Any-Number effect. Asi Wind asks for a named card and
then immediately asks the spectator where, on his person, they would like the card to appear.

45. See “The Marksman Deck,” Commercial Product. Vanishing Inc. Magic, 2014.
46. I’ve seen other magicians use this gambit as well, mostly to comical effect. Juan Tamariz calls it the Deaf
Technique, and he is the pioneer in this arena.

100
This, too, is a great way to buy a few more seconds, but now Asi is locked into this particular
revelation. By asking, “Are you right- or left-handed?” I buy myself the same amount of time as any
other request, but I’ve kept my options wide open for whatever opportunities present themselves.

With the named card secretly on top of the deck, I do a double turnover to show an indifferent
card, which I call out by name. “Touch it. And touch the back.” With her right first finger already
held out, she can use it to make contact with the top card. Asking the participant to touch the
face and then the back of the indifferent card is important. It reinforces that she’s touching
the same card, even though it has been switched with the double turnover. And there’s just
something about engaging another of the participant’s senses—her sense of touch—that
enhances the effect.

“What was the card you thought of ?” By asking again for the participant to name her card, you
give the impression that you didn’t even remember what she said. Some viewers might not even
remember that I asked in the first place. Even better.

Deal the top card into your right hand. Drop your left hand (and the pack) to your left side,
so that the spectators can focus on one single, isolated card. Turn it over to reveal that you
changed the card into the participant’s thought-of card.

If she names a card that is at or right below one of the breathers, I will often ask her to take
the deck in the hand she has held out, and then I cut to the named card from her hand. If she
names a card near the top or bottom, I will sometimes palm it out of the deck and hand the
other cards to her. Then I can reveal this card in the card box or my pocket.

The point of this section is to show you the benefit of developing a universal script that can
accommodate a number of different outcomes.

COMMENTS
The breathers unlock so many avenues to finding named cards. Unlike many people, I don’t
vary the way I find the cards much at all. It always sounds roughly as described above.

There are some other revelations I like to mix in when the right situation presents itself. Here
are some favorites.

The Sevens
The Sevens reside together in the center of the pack, so whenever a Seven is named you have
a particularly strong revelation at your disposal. I use the markings to pass the named Seven
quickly, invisibly to the top of the deck, and I reveal it there (without a color change). Then I
produce all four in quick succession, dealing each one into a participant’s hand as I find it. Any
false cuts and top-shot productions work well here.

Flutter
This is that rare effect that was created, fully formed, when performing for some friends. I was
riffing with the memorized deck, and I tried something gutsy…and it worked. I use it whenever
the conditions are right, which isn’t often.

101
 After someone names a card, you ask them to imagine someone is at the top of an enormous
skyscraper, and that they drop the very card named from the top floor. “I want you to imagine
that your card is fluttering down from the 100th floor to the 82nd floor, and then how it gets caught in
a gust of wind and floats back up to the 91st floor, and then flutters all the way down, down down, and
lands…there.” She looks to the ground, and a card has appeared at her feet: it’s the named card.

The method is exactly what you would expect. You control the named card to the bottom of
the deck. When you ask the group to imagine that they’re in front of a large skyscraper, you
point up in front of you with your empty hand and say, “Imagine there’s someone right there, and
that he is dropping your card…” When everyone looks up, you silently drop the card to the floor,
as close to their feet as possible. Sometimes it’s easier to stand next to the participant, shoulder
to shoulder, and drop it behind her. As you recount the story, slowly move back in front of her,
away from the card.

This only really works if it’s noisy or there’s carpet in the venue, so the card isn’t heard as it
falls. And it only really flies for four people or so; after that it’s difficult to ensure everyone is
looking up at the same time. But in the right moment, it’s powerful.

Royal Riffing
Later on we’ll explore the poker deal built into the Particle Stack (p. 277). In short, if you cut
the Queen of Diamonds to the top of the deck and deal a four-handed game of poker, you’ll
deal yourself a royal flush in Spades, in order.47 This is a handy feature generally, but I’ve found
it can be a useful revelation if any of the Spade royal flush cards are named. In these instances, I
immediately begin a series of false shuffles as I set up the simple premise: “While it looks like I’m
shuffling the cards right now, I’m actually searching for the card you just named, the Queen of Spades.
I’m going to try to stack that card to fall to my hand in a four-handed game of poker.” Now cut the
Queen of Diamonds to the top and deal out a legitimate four-handed game, pointing out that
the deals are entirely fair. To reveal the named card, pick up your hand, keeping the identity of
the cards concealed from audience view. Extract the named card from the spread and deal it face
up onto the table to prove you have, indeed, dealt the desired card into your own hand. “But I
didn’t stop there,” you say. “I also dealt myself the rest of a royal flush in Spades.”

Using this deal as an out provides a particularly powerful surprise ending to a named-card
revelation. The price you pay here is that the stack is now disordered. In the cases when I use
this revelation, I’ll proceed from this point directly into the bridge demonstration, continuing
to deal through the entire deck into the same four piles to produce four perfect bridge hands.

Particle Pack Riffing

If you’re using the Particle Pack, you can take advantage of six revelations built into the cards
themselves. I purposely chose six cards whose positions are less than ideal in terms of riffing.
In this way, six of the weaker revelations become very, very strong.

47. ...and if you continue dealing into the same four packets, you’ll deal four perfect bridge hands: all the Spades to
yourself, and each of the other suits to your opponents. More on that later.
102
The key in all four of these revelations is conviction. This sort of revelation is automatic
for us—no sleight-of-hand required. And
there’s a feeling amongst some magicians
that revelations of this sort are “cute.” But
remember: this is a thought-of card reveal.
If we deliver the following revelations with
conviction, they have tremendous potential.

Queen of Hearts
The Queen of Hearts is, of course, a
commonly named card, but it’s not a
particularly desirable card to locate quickly
because it’s so far down in the deck. This
2
card is revealed on the top panel of the box
flap (Photo 2).

Here’s how I handle it: “Take the cards in your hand and place them in the box.” I wait until they
comply. “And make a wish on your card. What was your card again?” I act as if I’ve forgotten the card
they named. “I didn’t know you would say that. But
the cards knew. They knew!” Now I point out the
wording on the side of the box and ask them to
read the message aloud.

Five of Hearts
On the small print of the Ace of Spades we’ve
built in a revelation of the Five of Hearts
(Photo 3). I handle this card in the same manner
as the Nine of Diamonds above. I produce the
Ace of Spades, which is easy because it’s three
cards from the face of the deck. I hand the card 3
to the participant and act disappointed, and then
“realize” that they have to read the small print.

Eight of Clubs and Nine of Hearts

Two of the court cards in the Particle Pack
have been altered so that the figures each
hold a playing card. The King of Diamonds
holds the Three of Clubs (Photo 4). The
Queen of Spades holds the Two of Spades
(Photo 5, next page). Both the Three and
the Two are situated in the stack in places
that make them less than ideal for jazzing, so
these two revelations are quite convenient.

The idea of revealing a card in the hands of

4
another card is an old idea (it’s drawn into

103
 most decks—the Six of Spades in the hand
of the Queen of Spades in a Bicycle deck).
Here, we’ve increased the visibility of the
card by adding indexes and bumping up the
size.48

How I handle the revelation is fluid to the

situation. For example, if the Three of Clubs
is named, I’ll cut the King of Diamonds to
the face. This is easy since the card is just
one card from the face. Then I’ll force the
5
King on the participant who named the
Three of Clubs. “I didn’t find your card,” I
admit, “but the King found it.”

The same approach can be used in reverse. If the King of Diamonds is named, it’s possible to
force the Three of Clubs. In this instance, I contrast the difference between a thought-of card
and a selected card. “You just thought of a card. But of course, we all know what card that is. I’ll
have you just touch the back of any card. That one? Remember it. Now you have a card that only you
know.” After the Three is shown and apparently lost in the deck, I promise to find both cards
at the same time but I produce only the King of Diamonds. Again, this is an easy matter of
cutting the bottom three cards from bottom to top and then producing the King on the face of
the deck with any revelation that suits the environment. After a dramatic build-up I direct the
participant to look closer at the King. In my experience, the less said here, the better. I keep
directing the participant to look at the card until they notice that the King is holding their
selection. When they convey this to the other spectators, it’s stronger.

I tend to only place one of these specially-printed cards in my pack at the same time.

48. Asi Wind has popularized this revelation and uses it in conjunction with a thought-of card for his gaffed deck
effect, “Gypsy Queen.”

104
The Imaginary
Card Trick
Here’s an alternative method for handling a thought-of card for larger
groups. I rarely combine this handling with other thought-of card
routines for the reason already mentioned: it’s more special to find
just one thought-of card. This is a more theatrical presentation, more suitable
for larger groups. If I’m performing casually for a few people, I will reveal a
thought-of, named card as already described. If I’m behind a table performing
for a dozen people or more, I’ll opt for this route instead. Observe how the
presentation emphasizes the difference between choosing and thinking of a card.
The challenge, always, is to find a way to point out this difference in a subtle,
artful way. My approach here is to turn it into a game of make-believe.

EFFECT
The performer asks a participant to withdraw a card from the spread, but rather than actually
pulling out a real card, she is invited to pretend to pull out a card. She is asked to show the
imaginary card around, and to announce whatever she would like the value to be. The magician
then causes the card to visually become a real card.

PERFORMANCE
“If I asked you to take a card from this spread, it would be a random choice, but it wouldn’t be entirely
free,” you begin. “You know what I mean, right? If you just picked a card you wouldn’t know what your
card is until you looked at it. But there’s always the chance I might see it or influence you to take this one
or that one.” Here you spread through the cards face down in a gesture, separating the spread
and pointing to various cards as you talk.

“The ultimate card trick is like the one we just imagined. Let’s try it, like this. I want you to reach into this
spread and pretend to take a card.” Spread the cards face down and allow the participant to play
along, miming the action of removing a card from the spread; play along here, separating the
spread at the point the participant touches, and behave as if she’s actually removing a playing
card. “That’s your imaginary card. It can be any card you want it to be. Once you’ve made up your mind,
tell everyone the card you’re holding.”

105
 Suppose she says the Nine of Spades. “Show the card to everyone,” you say, gesturing for her to
show the card to the other spectators. This is just part of the make-believe silliness, but it’s
also just enough of a diversion to misdirect from the tiny bit of work you must now do. As she
shows her imaginary card around, you must locate the named card by spreading to it between
your hands. You know its approximate position in the pack; in our example, the Nine of Spades
is in the eighteenth position. So you can easily spread to this approximate area and then sight
the card by its markings. If you’re performing this effect without a marked deck, you can locate
it with a glimpse and a count.

In a continuing action, you’ll separate the spread at the named card, taking the named card as
the uppermost card in the left hand’s portion. “And just like a real card trick, the card is lost in the
middle of the deck.” Under cover of apparently retrieving the card from the participant, you’ll
reverse the orientation of the spreads in each hand. This smaller finger action will be covered
by the larger action of retrieving the imaginary card with your right hand as follows. Turn the
right hand palm down, momentarily orienting the cards in this hand face up (Photo 1). As you
move toward the participant’s outstretched, empty hand, move your right thumb forward and retract
your right fingers toward your palm, reversing the orientation of the spread (Photo 2). At the same
time, you can carry out the exact same reverse-spreading action in the left hand, retracting the
left thumb as you extend your right fingers (Photo 3). Pretend to take the participant’s card
on top of the right hand’s spread and then bring the hands back together as you reorient the
right hand palm up again (Photo 4). When the two halves are reassembled, the spread looks

1 2

3 4

106
 5 6

7 8

continuous, but secretly the cards have been cut; now the named card is on top of the deck.
This control is a modest reframing of an Allan Ackerman control later varied by Lee Asher.49

As you close the spread, it’s your turn to do the miming actions; treat this moment like the real
thing. Fairly square the apparently outjogged, invisible card into the deck. The moment the
spectators relax when the pack is squared, immediately palm the named card off of the top of
the deck in your right hand. If at all possible, table or pocket the deck. The revelation is more
effective if you can distance your hands from the pack.

“And in this imaginary card trick the card jumps out of the deck and back into your hand. Look!” The
participant will look down to discover nothing in her hand. “Can I have it back?” Reach toward
the participant’s hands with your empty left hand and pretend to retrieve the imaginary card.
To make the card visible, bring the hands together and wave the palm-down right hand over
the palm-up left hand, releasing the palmed card into view (Photos 5 & 6). It’s as if you paint
the card into existence. You can also reach into their hand to produce the card, pushing it out
of your palm when you reach their palm (Photos 7 & 8).

I like to hand the card right back to the participant and stare blankly at her as I deliver the last
line: “Thanks for imagining that card.”

49. See Asher, Lee, The Losing Control, Hand Jobs, 2001, p. 6.

107
 RESET
Replace the card on top of the deck and your stack is still in order.

COMMENTS
In most thought-of card effects, the impact is inversely proportional to the time that elapses
between when the card is named and when it’s produced. Darwin Ortiz calls this the Critical
Interval. In total, this effect is less than a minute long. Short and sweet.

You’ll notice that I dispense with the silliness usually associated with this kind of plot. I don’t
ask the spectator to shuffle the imaginary deck and I don’t do schlocky bits that emphasize
the absurdity of the situation. Instead, I use the premise of asking someone to imagine a
card as a means to a very simple end: to provide a quick moment in which a card they imagine
materializes before their eyes.

My inspiration for “The Imaginary Card Trick” is “The Invisible Card” by Gerald Deutsch.50
When I was a kid, I saw Gerry do this for me in Reuben’s Deli, the famous Saturday hangout for
New York magicians. It was quite simple in construction: he palmed off a selected card, loaded
it into his pocket, and did some whimsical, interactive bits with an imaginary card. Eventually
he placed the “invisible” card in his pocket and pulled it out right away as a visible card. What
made an impression on me then—and I’ve never forgotten it—is how much the premise of an
imaginary-card-turned-real enhanced a rather basic revelation.

50. See Deutsch, Gerald, “The Invisible Card,” Apocalypse, Vol. 16, No. 1, January 1993, p. 2171.

108
Sequenced
This is a closing piece that works best for a small group of people,
ideally huddled around close to you. While a table isn’t required,
some sort of surface is; I’ve used stools, bar tops, and a spectator’s
cupped hands, and all of them work just fine. This is based on
Oz Pearlman’s “Perfection,”51 which is in turn based on the long
history of two-deck matching effects.

EFFECT
The performer and a participant each shuffle about half the deck thoroughly, and then each
deals through their packets simultaneously. Despite all the mixing, the cards from each packet
are perfect matched pairs.

PERFORMANCE
The setup for this trick is actually not the Particle System, but we get into the required order
quickly during the trick. You begin by saying, “It’s strange to think about it like this, but some of the
things we consider ‘magic’ are really just coincidences. Let me show you a coincidence so freaky it looks
like magic. I’m going to ask a few of you to help shuffle some cards, so let me divide up the deck a little.”
As you talk, you will divide the deck as required for the trick.

Exactly how you divide up the deck is up to

you. A feature of the Particle Stack is that
every two cards mirror each other. So if you
upjog two, downjog two, upjog two, and so on
throughout the deck, you’ll end up with two
identical sequences of cards. We won’t use the
full deck here. If you upjog every other pair, all
the Diamonds and Clubs will fall in one heap
and all the Hearts and Spades in the other.
That isn’t ideal, so you’ll vary it however you
like.
1

51. See Pearlman, Oz, Perfection, DVD, no date. Oz’s trick is near-perfect in its effectiveness, and this handling is
simply a way to perform it from a memorized deck.
109
 Here’s an example of how you might
proceed. With the cards facing you, upjog
the first two cards, the Ace of Clubs and
the King of Diamonds. Then downjog the
next two cards, the Ace of Spades and King
of Hearts. Upjog the Queen of Diamonds
and Two of Clubs, and then downjog the
Queen of Hearts and Two of Spades (Photo
1, previous page). You must continue in this
fashion, upjogging every other pair through
the Six of Hearts at the 21st position (Photo
2
2). But you can vary it a little to mix up the
suits. For example, after upjogging the Two
of Clubs and the Queen of Diamonds, you
can downjog the next four cards: the Two
of Spades and Queen of Hearts and the
Three of Clubs and Jack of Diamonds. So
long as you upjog the next pair, the Three
of Spades and Jack of Hearts, everything
remains intact. In other words, as long as
one pair ends up upjogged and one ends
up downjogged, the trick will work out
perfectly. So when I go through, I upjog and
downjog pairs haphazardly, only taking care 3
that the matching pairs are divided and that
I stop before I reach the Nine of Clubs (20).

Upjog all the remaining cards from the Nine

of Clubs to the top of the deck in one block
(Photo 3). Strip out all the outjogged cards
and replace them on top of the deck (the
bottom of the face-up deck). This creates
the exact setup you need for the effect, and
takes a few seconds to complete. The order
is as follows: Positions 1-20 are still in order
on top of the deck. The following thirty-two
cards consist of two blocks of sixteen cards 4
that perfectly mirror each other. Remember:
the cards are upjogged at chest height, and
the faces are hidden from the audience’s view. The exact order of cards will vary depending on
what you upjogged during the setup, but it might look like Photo 4.

A feature of the Particle System is that the division between these blocks is easily located. The
Nine of Clubs is a bottom-cutting breather, so cutting off the top block of cards is automatic.
The shorted Ace of Clubs is positioned at the juncture between the two matching blocks.

110
Cut off all the cards up to and including the Nine of Clubs and hand them to a participant to
shuffle. These twenty cards will soon be switched for one of the matching blocks. Then you
execute a series of false shuffles and cuts with the cards in your hand. “I’ll shuffle my half and
you shuffle yours.”

Per Oz Pearlman’s presentation, it’s advantageous to get the spectators accustomed to passing
the packet around, so ask the participant shuffling to pass it to someone else, and for that person
to pass it after she shuffles. You want them to remember that their cards were thoroughly mixed.

Obtain a break between the two blocks in your hand. This is easy to do by riffling your left little
finger down the right side of the deck until you feel the “click” of the short card.

Take back the shuffled pack from above in the right hand. You’ll do a packet-for-packet switch
with this shuffled packet, exchanging it for all the cards above the break in the right hand. The
cover for this switch is presentational. Say, “How many times has this packet been shuffled? Three?
You’re saying four. Okay, four. And I think you’d agree that’s a lot. Now, who has not yet touched these
cards? Would that person please come stand next to me?” As you let the audience help you find
someone who has not yet helped, you bring the hands together and exchange the packets on top
of the deck, like a top change but with the packets held in end grip (Photos 5-8). Note that you
maintain a break below the cards added to the top of the pile in your left hand.

5 6

7 8

111
 This switch takes less than a second and can be done without looking at your hands. It’s covered
not only under the guise of a question, but also under the commotion of someone moving
from in front of you to next to you. If possible, I try to do the switch at the exact moment
the participant is crossing in front of my hands; the switch is literally out of view of the other
spectators.

With the participant situated to your right, hand her the apparently shuffled packet. Actually,
you’re handing her one of the two “paired” packets.

Pull over a stool or ask another participant to hold out both hands; you need only enough
surface area for each of you to deal a pile face up. “Now the order of your cards was determined
entirely by you and you and you and you,” you say, pointing to the various spectators who shuffled.
“I want you to deal the top card, whatever it is, face up.” As she deals the top card face up, do a pass
or cut at the break to bring your paired packet to the top.

Deal your top card to show a perfect match (Photo 9). “That’s a pretty strange coincidence, right?”
The spectators will see where this is headed, but it’s too late to backtrack. I often hear a chorus
of “Noooooo,” as they realize they’re about to see two shuffled packets match entirely.

Ask the participant to deal in unison with you, showing every card is a perfect match until her
cards are exhausted (Photo 10). Deal with increased speed, calling out the pairs as you deal
until her cards are gone. “Now THAT is a coincidence.” You’re left with a packet of cards in your
hand, which you can casually place on the table.

9 10

112
 COMMENTS
• I envision nervous readers will fret over the twenty cards left over in your hand after all
the participants’ cards have been dealt. This is a quintessential example of something that
magicians worry about that no laymen ever will. You handed out cards for someone to
shuffle and they all matched yours. That’s the trick. The undealt cards are inconsequential.

• Credit to Oz Pearlman. He found a way to bring the strength of a two-deck matching effect
not only to one pack of cards, but to a close-up environment. This is miracle-caliber magic,
and it’s possible right out of the Particle System.

What’s easy to miss in this description is the presentation. The beauty of this plot is that
it’s self-evident. It’s so visually clear that it doesn’t need any extraneous narration. But
don’t mistake this for a lack of presentation. Exactly how you “present” the dealing at the
end will determine the reaction you get. Start slow to help spectators establish the effect in
their minds. You might point out that the cards are coming out in perfect pairs. You might
remind them that they shuffled. Then you deal a little faster, and a little faster, and a little
faster still. As you progress you deal with more force, perhaps smacking the last few cards
on the table with authority. The volume of your voice, too, can go up slightly as you become
more enthusiastic about the coincidence unfolding. These are subtle techniques intended
to boost the impact of the trick, so don’t overdo it. Too many magicians don’t understand
the delicacy of these techniques; they simply emulate the enthusiasm of, for example, Juan
Tamariz, without a full understanding of how and why. You want your enthusiasm to
mirror that of your audience; you don’t want to look like you’re the one most impressed by
your own tricks.

• This is a closing piece as “Sequenced” seemingly destroys the stack. But actually, a significant
portion of the deck remains in a particular permutation. If you so choose, you can perform
one last routine immediately following “Sequenced.” Read on to find out more.

113
 The Curious
Incident
The first rule of memorized deck magic, so they tell us, is never,
ever show that you’ve memorized the order of the deck. That’s a
good rule, but rules can be broken occasionally. In this trick, the
spectators thoroughly shuffle the pack and then you recite its order.

This was my closing piece with a memorized deck for years. I’m going to
explain the effect generally because it will work with essentially any stack.
Then, I’ll explain how to perform it after the previous effect, “Sequenced,”
which has the advantage of appearing like you collect the cards after the
participants have thoroughly shuffled them.

This particular trick doesn’t work particularly well directly from the
Particle Stack: the arrangement was never meant to withstand this kind
of scrutiny. That’s why I prefer to perform “The Curious Incident” right
after “Sequenced.” The order changes in the course of “Sequenced,” but in a
predetermined way that makes the order of the cards appear more random.
For this reason, the cards are not in Particle Stack in the photos that follow.

EFFECT
A participant removes a card from the pack and places it in her pocket without looking.
Spectators assist the performer in thoroughly shuffling the deck. The performer recounts how
Sherlock Holmes once used the absence of evidence as evidence. The performer proceeds to
memorize the entire pack of cards and recite each card aloud. Noting that he only memorized
fifty-one cards, he ends by correctly identifying the one missing card.

114
 SETUP
This effect uses only half the stack, and can be done with any memorized deck that really does
look shuffled; it can’t have too many repeating cards close together.

PERFORMANCE
Begin, “There’s a famous Sherlock Holmes mystery where he solves a case using a lack of evidence. It’s
sometimes referred to as ‘The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime.’ A guard dog that always
barked didn’t bark. And Holmes realized the absence of evidence is, in itself, a kind of evidence. I’d like
to try the same thing. So we need to remove a piece of evidence. Would you touch any card? That one?
Don’t look at it. Instead, just put it in your pocket.”

Spread the cards between your hands and have any card withdrawn from the lower half of your
stack. If you’re using marked cards, note the card as it’s removed. If not, sight the card above
the withdrawn card to determine this card’s value. Remember it. It’s going to be a while before
you see it again. Suppose it’s the Nine of Hearts.

For the rest of the trick, you only need roughly half the cards in memorized order, but you
must be able to call out these cards from memory without hesitation. Since most people are
more comfortable with the top cards in their stack, we’ll assume you wish to work with the top
half of the deck. Cut these cards to the bottom of the deck and hold a break between the two
halves. It doesn’t have to be exactly twenty-six cards; you can approximate it.

Spread over roughly half the cards above the break and hand them to someone to shuffle. Then
hand out all the remaining cards above the break and ask a different participant to shuffle
these cards. You retain the remaining cards,
your half-stack. Give these cards a false shuffle
while you talk. To recap the situation, you hold
roughly half the cards in your hands. The
other half is divided between two participants,
who are shuffling their cards.

Table your cards for a moment and take back

one of the participant’s packets. Teach the other
participant the actions of the Group Shuffle (p.
58), and then mix the dozen or so cards in your
hand with the other participant’s packet and
1
genuinely push them together (Photo 1). Hand
these cards to the first participant, and ask her
help in doing the Group Shuffle one more time.
Pick up your cards and allow her to help interweave her cards into yours. Leave the packet
elongated and show that the cards really are being shuffled. As you push the packet together,
secretly sidejog the shuffled packet by pushing it through the top half of the stack at an angle
(Photos 2-4 show the sequence). The right little finger is positioned at the outer right corner
of the participant’s packet, and swivels this packet to the right.

115
 2 3

4 5

6 7

In a continuing action, use the left hand to grasp the right-jogged packet from beneath in a
straddle grip and unweave the packets apart. The left hand replaces this shuffled packet on top
of the deck for a moment, but you keep a break between the two packets. At your convenience,
cut the cards above the break to the table.

The cards on the table now appear thoroughly shuffled. The spectators believe they helped
you mix packets separately and then together. Actually, the top half of the deck remains in
memorized order, while the bottom half of the deck is shuffled. You’re also remembering the
Nine of Hearts in the participant’s pocket.

116
If you don’t wish to use “The Group Shuffle” here, you can use any of the standard “dodges”
in which a participant mixes a deck of cards in groups while you secretly maintain the order
of one packet. My favorite way to do this is a move shown to me by Benjamin Earl. To do this,
hand out half the deck for shuffling while situating the other packet crosswise on top of the
box (Photo 5). After the participant has shuffled the first packet, take it back in right end grip.
In an apparent effort to retrieve the tabled packet, openly place the packet in your right hand on
top of the packet on the box but sidejogged to the left for half its length (Photo 6). Pick up both
packets together and move them in front of your body. Now carry out the actions of a swing
cut, openly taking the upper, sidejogged packet into your left hand (Photo 7). Immediately
set the cards in the right hand back onto the table and then hand the cards in the left hand to
someone else to shuffle. “And would you shuffle these please?” You have actually done nothing
except hand the same packet out for shuffling a second time, but done offhandedly while you
speak, it will appear as if you swapped out the packets for shuffling. Switches of this kind aren’t
meant to withstand undue scrutiny; they are classified in the family of moves that must be done
confidently and casually and skirt under the radar.

Now you set up the premise of the trick. “At this point, the cards are thoroughly shuffled. I don’t know
what card you picked and not even you know what card you picked. But we know the fifty-one cards you
didn’t pick.”

Point to the person who chose the card. “I’d like you to count, slowly, from five to one. Like, one Miss-
iss-ippi, two Miss-iss-ippi, and so on. Go!”

As she counts, spread the cards and pretend to memorize the cards either by flicking through
them or spreading them on the table. Act as if you just memorized the last bunch of cards as
she counts down to one. “Got it!”

Now you’ll recite apparently every card in the deck in order. In the pre-pandemic world, I used
to ask someone to come behind me and cover my eyes with their hands. Now this just seems
gross to me, and very likely to most spectators. So instead, I take the cards in my left hand and
turn my head clearly away to the left.

You’ll call out cards and deal them onto the table in a face-up spread from right to left, each
card overlapping the next so they stay in order. And before you deal each card, you’ll call out
just the values, not the suits. You see, you’re going to call out the order of the top half of the
deck twice, so it’s better to be a little more vague about the cards.

“The order is Jack, King, Five, Two, Nine, then an Ace, then a Three, then a Seven—no, a Six—Eight,
Ace, Ten, Three…” Pretend to strain while recalling the cards, hesitating occasionally, and then
rattling off sequences of cards with impressive speed and accuracy. When you get near the
halfway point, you’ll pause to take some applause. “Queen, Ace, Eight, Three, Seven, how am I doing
so far?” If you speak quickly and with authority, dealing the cards down with increasing force,
you’ll get a strong ovation here.

Now you’ll switch the halves of the deck. It will appear as though you push aside the cards you
just dealt, but you’ll actually push aside the cards left in your hand and re-deal the cards you
just went through.

117
 8 9

10 11

Get a little-finger break above the lowermost card in your left hand. Pull down with your left
little finger to widen the gap between the lowermost card and the rest of the packet. Insert
your right thumb into this gap and grasp the packet between your thumb and fingers (Photo
8). Now rotate the card remaining in the left hand face up by turning the left wrist down as you
rotate the cards in your right hand face up end over end (Photos 9-11).

Move the right hand to the right of the tabled spread as you move your left hand to the left end
of the spread (Photo 12). Slip the entire packet in your right hand under the lowermost card of
the spread, using it as a scoop. At the same time, place the card in your left hand on the face of
the packet (Photo 13). This entire sequence takes about two seconds, and is done as you look
up, speaking to the audience. It should look as though you’re about to scoop up the tabled cards.

You will collect the spread by squaring the cards from right to left. As you push the cards into
your waiting left hand, clamp your right thumb onto the first three or four cards of the tabled
spread. This will be the third (or fourth or fifth) card in your stack. In a moment you’ll discard
these cards with the others so that when you start reciting cards again, you don’t start with
exactly the same card as before. In other words, you started by reciting, “Jack, King, Five…”
and when you start again, you don’t want to start with the same three values. So by pinning
your right thumb on these cards, you’ll eliminate them from the group.

118
 12 13

14 15

16 17

Push the cards into your left hand and take all the cards not clamped under the right thumb
(Photo 14). Note that the left thumb pulls over all of these cards into a loosely gathered pile
(Photo 15). At this moment, glance down and remember two cards: whatever card is on the face
of the packet and whatever the new top card in the left hand is.

Use the cards in the right hand to lever the other cards face down into the left hand (Photos
16 & 17). In a continuing action, move the cards in the right hand back to the right and leave
them in an unsquared packet face up. This switch takes more than a page and seven photos to
describe. It takes a couple seconds to perform, and is done under cover of audience applause.

119
 Turn your head away and recite “the rest” of the deck, this time with more confidence and
authority and speed. You’ll start at the fourth card in your stack this time, which you noted
during the switch. About halfway through calling out the cards, you can amp up the drama by
reciting the full values of the cards: “The Ace of Clubs, Ten of Spades, Five of Hearts, Two of
Diamonds, King of Diamonds, Seven of Diamonds…” Go all the way through until the last card.
This card is the card you noted during the switch; it isn’t from the upper portion of cards. It’s
there as a cover card so that the face card of the packet you’re holding isn’t the same before and
after the switch. Slam this card down as you call out the name of this last card and pop out of
your chair.

“That’s every card in the deck except one card. But now is the hard part: I have to remember the one
card I didn’t remember.” Pause for a beat, apparently to calculate the missing card. “The Nine of
Hearts! Please reach into your pocket and pull out the card that not even you know the identity of. Call
it out and hold it over your head.”

The participant confirms the Nine of Hearts is in her pocket and applause fills the room as you
retrieve it from her and toss it onto the table with the other cards.

The Curious Incident with the Particle System

Now that you understand the effect and the method, you understand why this effect won’t
work with the Particle System. The effect relies on an order that sounds totally random, and
that is unfortunately not the case with my stack. It broke my heart to give up my closer when
I switched stacks…until I realized it was entirely possible if you precede it with “Sequenced.”

At the end of “Sequenced” you are left with three piles of cards. There are two separate packets
on the table whose values match identically. These are the packets you dealt alongside the
participant to show that the cards match from top to bottom. These two tabled packets are face
up at the end of the trick, with the Ace of Clubs on the face of your packet and the Ace of
Spades on the face of the participant’s packet. Both of these packets contain sixteen cards. A
third packet—this one shuffled—resides in your hands. This packet consists of twenty cards.

At the end of “Sequenced,” as you apparently gather the packets back together, drop one of the
tabled packets on top of the other (the specific order doesn’t matter) and pick up the combined
packet in your right hand.

You are now in position to perform “The Curious Incident.” Your right hand holds the thirty-
two-card stack that you’ll recite. The left hand holds the twenty cards you’ll pass out for
shuffling. These packets aren’t the same size, but this won’t make any difference to the handling.

You can proceed with the Group Shuffle or the simple switch outlined above. At the end of
either procedure, it will appear as though the audience has thoroughly mixed all the cards.
Actually, the order of the thirty-two-card packet has been maintained and is placed on top of
the shuffled twenty-card packet.

120
Proceed as explained above by having someone select any card from the lower twenty cards.
To ensure they choose a card from this section, spread only the lower portion of the deck as
you ask someone to touch a card. With a marked pack you’ll be able to note the participant’s
card instantly as she removes it from the deck. If not, you’ll need to glimpse the card before she
isolates it in her pocket.

Carry on as already described, apparently memorizing all the cards. When it’s time to recite
“all” the cards in the “shuffled” deck, you’ll simply recite a formula that you probably don’t
realize you already know. The thirty-two-card stack derived from “Sequenced” is the Particle
Stack but without the repeating pairs. So instead of two pairs repeated, just one pair is present.
But remembering the order is even easier than it seems because there’s a mathematical formula
that you can think through each time you perform this effect.

The first pair of the stack consists of a Six and an Eight, and we can think about this stack
as two chains of cards with the first position increasing by one in value and the second card
decreasing by one in value. In other words, the first position is always running up as the second
position is always running down. So the first pair is 6,8, the second pair is 7,7, since we add one
to the first card and subtract one from the second pair. The third pair is 8,6, then 9,5, and so on.

If we think of this stack in terms of a pair X and Y, just make the dead-easy calculation of (X
+1), (Y-1).

It’s easy to understand the pattern if you look at it in columns like this:

68
77
86
95
10 4
J3
Q2
KA

After you get through to the Ace, the pattern begins again exactly the same, starting with 6, 8.

If you practice reciting the order of this packet three times through, it will become second-
nature. In fact, the simple calculations will fall away because knowing the Particle Stack means
that you essentially have this order memorized.

There is a subtle art to how, precisely, you deliver the order of these cards. Ideally you want
to avoid the cadence of naming them in pairs. Instead, try to break up the pairs in a seemingly
haphazard way, and recite the cards slower at first, and then add speed and confidence as you go
through the last dozen cards or so.

The switch on the table occurs in exactly the same way as described above, as does the final
revelation.

121
 One last point that feels best to add in here at the end, now that you understand how to adapt
this piece to the Particle System. Before you apparently memorize the cards, shuffle off the top
four cards of the 32-card stack to the bottom to get rid of them. The reason is that there are
two Sevens together in the third and fourth positions from the top, and there are two more
Sevens that appear, together, later in the stack. This means that you would be listing eight
Sevens in the course of the trick, which might be noticeable. It wasn’t a problem…until one
day someone called me on it. So, now I casually shuffle off the top four cards (a Six, an Eight, a
Seven, and a Seven) to the bottom of the deck and begin by calling out Eight, Six, Nine, Five,
and so on.

COMMENTS
• If you should get tangled up in reciting the cards, in a pinch you’ll be able to recite them from
the markings. The effect is exponentially stronger with your head turned, or blindfolded.
But it’s also helpful to know that in an emergency, the cards are marked.

• Interestingly, the half-stack used in this effect is maintained throughout and can be used for
other effects. But theatrically, this is a closing piece and I haven’t discovered anything useful
to do with the stack afterward.

• Designing a stack is all about trade-offs. The Particle Stack opened up many new
opportunities for me, but I lost the ability to perform my closer from my Aronson Stack
days. Now you’ve read the adjustments I made to bring it back into the rotation.

• Reciting aloud the order of your memorized stack is blasphemy, yet it’s exactly the theme
of this trick. I’m comfortable making an exception in this case because the cards appear to
be thoroughly shuffled by the spectators.

• This effect started with my fascination with one of Arthur Conan Doyle’s most ingenious
literary devices: the idea of something missing as a roundabout way of solving a mystery.
Psychologists call this concept Omission Neglect. Here’s the famous passage, from “The
Adventure of Silver Blaze.”52

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to
draw my attention?”

Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”

Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”

Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

52. See Doyle, Arthur Conan, “The Adventure of Silver Blaze,” The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, 1893.

122
A Surprise...
This concludes Part II, our first exploration into effects with the
Particle System. The more substantial effects lie ahead, but first I have
a surprise for you. The effects you’ve just learned are not some random
assortment. By now I hope you’ll see that there is a secret order to more
than just the cards in the Particle Stack; even the order of tricks in this
chapter has a purpose.

The effects you’ve just learned and the order you learned them in make
up a complete performance setlist. Part II is the exact set that I perform
for small groups. You’ll notice that not a single effect requires a table,
and that stack order is maintained until your big ending. So whether
you’re strolling at a gig or performing at a show, this is a full ten-minute
set right out of your pocket. It might go like this:

“Remember to Be Honest.” We begin with one of the strongest

interactive card tricks possible. Instant magic in the participant’s hands.

“X-Ray.” An effect that is longer and more impossible than your opener,
this gives you a chance to move around the performance space, and
do something that feels bigger in scope. If the situation isn’t right for
“X-Ray,” you just skip it.

“Invisible Touch.” This interlude provides a three-phase break from

selecting cards, and offers magic of a different variety.

“Back in Time.” The risk of any memorized deck set is that every trick
involves thought-of cards. We’re spacing out material so that each effect
feels unique. Here the effect is straightening out a topsy-turvy deck.

“Thoughts on Thought-of Cards.” It doesn’t get much stronger than

instantly finding a thought-of card.

“Sequenced.” We end in the strongest way possible: two shuffled packets

match identically. This is how I end the routine much of the time. But
in formal settings, when I do have the luxury of table space, I will often
do what feels, in the moment, like an “encore” piece.

123
 “The Curious Incident” breaks the only unbreakable rule in memorized
deck magic: it simulates you memorizing a deck. This was my closer for
years, and served me well.

This setlist isn’t rigid; there are times I may omit one of these items
or do something we haven’t yet explained. In many cases I’ll perform
“Three Act Structure” (p. 259) instead of or in addition to “Thought-of
Card.” The important point here is that we’re six tricks into The Particle
System and you now have a full “show” you can do for friends, family, or
professionally.

The setlist starts small and quick, with a simple transposition effect.
But the tricks build dramatically, ending with two closer-worthy pieces.
Importantly, the last two effects involve the audience shuffling what
appears to be the entire deck, thus helping the whole set feel like the
cards are constantly in a state of change.

124
Three Fallacies
What follows are three fallacies that might influence the way you approach
memorized deck magic. None of these three problems are related in any way
except that they all have the same solution—at least I think so. And this solution
points toward a new way of thinking about stack work.

Fallacy #1: Named-card effects are always better than chosen-

card effects.
Sometimes a thought-of, named-card effect precludes the notion of any sort of
force. “I could have named any card,” a spectator might think or even say aloud,
in amazement. Other times it might be met with disappointment: “That’s easy
because I told you my card.” Context is everything. We’ve already explored how
we can maximize the impact of both named-card and chosen-card approaches
(p. 98). Here, I’ll address the perception that named-card routines are somehow
inherently better than chosen card routines.

I’m struck by how many memorized deck routines simply convert chosen-card
routines to name-a-card routines without much consideration for whether
this improves the effect in the minds of the spectators. For example, nearly every
newcomer to memorized deck magic realizes you can do Vernon’s seminal
“Triumph” with a named card. But just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
A chosen card is (apparently) a secret; a named card isn’t. Much of the drama
derived from all card magic comes from the magician not knowing a selected card
or where it resides in the pack. On p. 80, we explored a Triumph handling (“Back
in Time”) that I choose to do with a chosen card rather than a named card; it’s
almost no extra work to alter the handling to a named card, but I choose not use
a named card here because I believe, strongly, that in that context, it’s better that
the chosen card remains a secret.

I approach Fallacy #1 from this standpoint: chosen-card tricks are more easily
understood and appreciated by lay audiences. If you’re going to perform a name-
a-card trick, the responsibility is yours to communicate why naming a card is, in
that context, more impressive for what you’re doing. As explained in “One and
Done” (p. 92), I think magicians would do well to do less material with thought-of,
named cards, and to build up these moments more.

125
 Fallacy #2: The more interesting the method, the better the trick.
Let’s fix this fallacy straight away: the more interesting the effect, the better the trick.

An enormous appeal of memorized deck magic is the elegance of its methods. By assigning
every card a stack number, a new world comes into a focus: a world of sunken keys, interlocking
chains, and secret calculations. Stack magic tickles our brain in a new way, particularly since
we’re all used to a steady diet of sleight-of-hand. It’s intoxicating to realize that we can
manipulate a deck of cards in our minds as well as in our hands.

What often happens next, though, is troubling. We marvel over the wrong things. We’re
impressed with elegant methods to find chosen cards, and we rank highest the effects that
would fool us. We lose sight of what will amaze our audiences.

More often than not, the methods are more interesting than the effects. From the spectator’s
point of view, nearly all impossible locations look the same: how the packets are cut and precisely
when and what packets are shuffled are the sorts of details that magicians love to tinker with.
But I’m unconvinced these details deserve more attention than the effect itself.

If you think I’m proving an obvious point—preaching to the choir—consider this: the subtle use
of marked cards almost always improves (and sometimes replaces) more elegant but complex
methods, and it renders most memorized deck effects stronger in performance. Yet in all my
encounters and sessions with magicians, I can count on one hand the number of magicians
who regularly employ a marked deck in their stack work. Another example: stack work is full
of gambling material, but I would classify most of it as uninspiring. “But it works right out of
stack,” one might argue, “as long as you switch cards 23 and 46 and do second deals on the third
round of dealing.” The question we should be asking is fundamental: is this the most amazing
effect of its kind that I can perform for an audience?

Fallacy #3: Stack-independent tricks are better than stack-dependent tricks.

“Stack-dependent material is usually just not very good,” writes Pit Hartling. “It is easy to see
why: normally when creating a trick, one decides what the effect should be and then puts the
deck in the required order. Stack-dependent material, however, puts the cart before the horse:
instead of the setup serving the effect, everything has to submit to the fixed order.”53

Pit is right; stack-dependent material usually isn’t very good. And he’s right about why; that
many magicians attempt to retro-fit material into a stack. The results are predictably clumsy.
But there’s an entirely different way of evaluating, creating, and selecting stack material:
building it into the stack.

I’m sensitive to this fallacy because this book contains a multitude of stack-dependent tricks.
But nearly every effect built into the stack was just that—built in. Very little of this material
was shoehorned into the arrangement afterward.

53. Hartling, Pit, In Order to Amaze, 2016, p. 188.

126
Stack-independent tricks have more interesting methods than stack-dependent tricks. But this is
for the simple reason that in stack-dependent tricks, the method often is the stack. In some of the
best stack-independent magic, the method is often a subtle mathematical principle—a method
so complex that sometimes not even the performer understands precisely how it happens. But
I urge you not to curate your repertoire by method alone.

You just learned “Sequenced,” one of my favorite effects from the Particle System. The method
for this effect isn’t particularly clever: it’s a packet switch of a shuffled portion for an ordered
one. Yet the effect is so immediate, so compelling, that it would be a mistake to overlook it
because the method might be classified by some as brute-force.

It shouldn’t matter what is and isn’t a “memorized deck trick,” but to most magicians it does.
“If the only tool you have is a hammer,” wrote Abraham Maslow, “you tend to treat everything
as if it were a nail.” If you believe memorized deck effects are only those in which the method is
the memorized deck, you’re limiting yourself. Some of the best uses of this tool, I would argue,
are when it only plays one part in the method.

The unifying solution to all three of these fallacies is a shift in how we think about the memorized
deck. Many magicians consider the memorized deck as a tool; instead, let’s think of it like a
toolbox. A tool does one thing, and it seems to me that for most magicians that “thing” is finding
named cards in increasingly complex ways. But the memorized deck is a hundred tools, each
one suited to a different, devious purpose. The top and bottom cards can tell us, immediately,
what card has been cut and pocketed. A chosen card can be located from a memorized deck by
virtue of its absence, or by its replacement in a different spot. Key cards can change position,
survive shuffles, or be hidden in plain sight. A chosen card can be unknowingly cued to you by
a spectator, even while your back is turned. The “tools” available to us in a memorized stack are
almost inexhaustible, yet many practitioners get stuck on doing name-a-card tricks. As already
mentioned, if you view the memorized deck like a hammer, then every trick you select will be
a nail.

I already made the case for thinking of the Particle Stack as a “system” (p. 11). But I made this
case on the basis of practicality; it’s a way to perform a vast repertoire of effects right out of
your pocket. It’s convenient. Now I’ll make the case from the standpoint of deception. It’s stronger.

Recall two effects in the previous chapter: “X-Ray” and “Triumph,” two tricks that don’t use the
order of the cards as part of the method. But each one works around the stack, and maintains
it from start to finish. The apparent shuffling and cutting in these routines add to the illusion
that you couldn’t possibly know the order of the cards. So in a way, these tricks, themselves, are
a method: they’re camouflage for the stack. As mentioned, I call these kinds of effects “stack-
sustainable,” and they are identified by the circular arrow icon.

127
 In the pages ahead, we’re going to use the memorized deck in ways that aren’t strictly
“memorized deck magic.” In “Weighing Across” (p. 148) the stack is used in a Cards Across plot
to signal how many cards a participant is sitting on. In “Particle Pair” (p. 170) the stack serves
as an open index to locate any pair called for. I revisit classics that can be performed without
disturbing the stack. They’re strong effects, and also a kind of camouflage for whatever stack
trick you use afterward. Nearly every trick in these pages leans on the arrangement of the
cards in a different way, and each one yields a very different effect.

In Part III we’ll explore another full show, this time for a parlor audience. As you read the next
chapter, observe not only how the Particle System is used for every effect, but also how it’s used
in distinctly different ways.

128
Part III:
The Parlor Show

What follows is a full show, about eighteen minutes in length, done entirely
with the Particle System. The show was designed for and honed in formal
close-up environments, like that at the Magic Castle or in a hospitality suite.
Ideally, there are between ten and forty people watching, each with a view of
the table, either live or by video projection. The following drawings show the
ideal setup, which I share with clients who book me for shows of this nature.

The setlist isn’t rigid; sometimes I substitute these routines for other
memorized deck routines. But the opening and closing are fixed, and there
is a natural build and flow to what follows. When possible, I ask the host to
have the pack shuffled before I begin, as explained on p. 61. Then, I ask the
host to seat someone expressive and fun at the table to my right. The house
lights go down, I’m introduced, and the show begins.
Fooling About
This simple opening effect is more than it seems: it’s a deck switch.
“Fooling About” offers you a way to start a formal close-up show
by having a pack thoroughly shuffled, and at the end the pack is
switched in for any memorized pack.

EFFECT
After having several participants help thoroughly shuffle the cards, someone chooses a card
and loses it in the pack. The deck is placed in the card box and the card box is placed inside the
performer’s pocket. The participant is asked to name her card, and when she does, the performer
plunges his hand into his pocket, opens the box, and extracts one card…the named selection.

SETUP
You require two packs to perform this. One deck begins in memorized order, cut so that the
force card is on top. When I do this trick, I always force the Five of Diamonds (Photo 1). The
other pack begins in any order. You can, if you wish, crimp or short the Five of Diamonds for
easy location. But this isn’t strictly necessary.

One more thing. On both card boxes, tear the front panel about an inch into the front of the
card box. Make sure that the tear in each box matches (photo 2). This is just another layer to
subtly reinforce that the pack you remove from your pocket is the same pack you placed inside
it. Place the memorized deck in one box so that the Five of Diamonds is nearest the thumb

1 2

131
 notch. Tuck the flap the box just under the
Five, separating it from the other cards
(photo 3). Place this box in your right side
jacket pocket. Slip the other, shuffled pack
inside its card box, and place it on top of
your working surface.

PERFORMANCE
“We begin with chaos.” Remove the cards
from the box and spread them face up across
the table so everyone can see that they’re 3
shuffled. “If you think about it, all card tricks,
at their essence, are about finding order from
chaos. So we need to create some chaos.” Turn the cards face down and begin a wash shuffle, mixing
cards on the table by smearing them all over the surface of the table, moving your hands from
side to side, sliding cards over and under each other. Encourage people sitting around the table
to get involved. “Will you shuffle some cards? And you? You look bored sir, would you mix this card?”
So saying, slide small groups to a couple of people, and then slide one card to a person as you
jokingly ask them to mix their “card.”

“There’s a term I love called ‘pre-suasion,’ and it applies here. You see, in a couple of minutes, you’re
going to see some things I hope you find amazing. And when you do, you might think, ‘There’s only one
way that can be done: the cards must be in a particular order.’ So now, let’s ‘pre-suade’ each other that
these cards really are mixed.”

Square up the cards and position the Five of Diamonds on the face of the deck, either by
sighting it and cutting it to the top, or (if you have a crimp in the card) cutting to the crimp.
Force this card on a participant using your favorite method, and ask them to remove it from
the pack.

Pick up the card box and put the remainder of the pack inside the box. As you open the flap, act
as if you accidentally tore the box a little. Don’t over-act here; I just go silent for a moment and
examine it while muttering, “Oops. I think they’ll still go inside…yeah, it’s fine.” But as you talk to
yourself, make sure everyone can see that the
card box has been torn (photo 4).

Place the cards inside the box face down,

oriented the same way you placed the
memorized deck into its box in your right
pocket. Invite the participant to slip the chosen
card anywhere she likes into the pack. You can
point out that since the cards are in the box,
you cannot manipulate the order at all. Place
the box in your pocket so that it rests between
4 you and the memorized deck, which is the outer
box in your pocket.

132
“I take you now out of this theater and this city,
and to the streets of the wild, wild west, for a duel.
I’m going to count to three, and when I do, I want
you to name the card you chose out loud. When you
do, I’ll reach into my pocket, open the box, and feel
for the one you named, and then pull it out. All of
this in less than 45 minutes.” This last line breaks
the tension.

“One…two…it’s like that scene from the film

Tombstone, where Johnny Ringo says to Doc
5
Holliday, ‘Doc, I was just fooling about.’ And Doc
says, ‘I wasn’t.’”

“One…two…three!” She will name the Five of

Diamonds, and you plunge your hand into your
pocket and make contact with the memorized
deck, the outer deck in this space. With the pad
of your second finger, make contact with the
Five you positioned on the outside of the flap
and extract this card, pulling it into view with
the back facing the audience (Photos 5-7).

Dramatically reveal that you pulled exactly the 6

right card. Under cover the applause, sit down at
the table and, as you do, pull out the memorized
deck from your pocket. Remove the cards from
the box and immediately fuss with the tear in
the box, as if remembering that it’s there. You
need not say anything, but letting people see
you try to bend the box back into shape and
tinker with the tear is enough to convince even
a skeptic that the box is the same.

COMMENTS
• I have added very little to the general 7
concept outlined here: Simon Aronson
first shared with me the simple idea of this
basic concept, and I saw him use it to great
effect at a Gathering for Gardner conference years ago. The card-from-pocket plot makes
an excellent guise to switch packs. My biggest contribution is the torn box subtlety. That
came about because I once did this trick for an audience, and overheard a kid in the second
row whisper that the box I took out was missing the cellophane. I realized, then, that I had
been careless with the two boxes, and they didn’t match. But I also realized that at least
some audiences are attuned to small details on the box, and I might be able to exploit that
to my advantage.

133
 • I offer another deck switch option on p. 61, called the Super-Ultimate-Best-Ever-Deluxe-
False-Shuffle 2.0, which is my other preferred choice for switching packs in a formal setting.

• I get playful with the reference to Tombstone, and will sometimes ask the participant to
recite the line I recite, but to sub in my name instead of Doc Holliday. I wanted to be a
cowboy before I wanted to be a magician, and in that moment, I get to be both.

This routine is playful, and I don’t really treat it as a big opening effect. That allows me to
position the effect that follows, “Matching the Cards,” as yet another “opening” effect.

134
Matching the Cards
Audiences love this classic effect, and so do I.54 If you don’t yet do
it in some form, perhaps having it built right into the top of the
Particle Stack will persuade you to try it. The qualities of the trick
make it ideal as an opener or, as here, a second effect, but it requires
a table. The effect usually relies on multiple double-undercuts and
slip cuts; all of that has been eliminated.

EFFECT
A participant selects a card which is isolated face down. The performer offers to cut to the three
mates of the selected card. The performer cuts to the King of Diamonds, King of Clubs, and
King of Spades. Each King is placed on the table after it’s located. The participant’s selection is
turned over to reveal…an Ace. Not the expected final King. As a surprise, the performer reveals
that the other three Kings have changed into the four Aces.

SETUP
Cut the bottom two cards to the top of the deck. The Ace of Spades is now the face card.

PERFORMANCE
“People warm up in different ways. If I were an athlete, I might do stretching exercises. If I were
a singer, I might sing the scales. Let me show you how I warm up.” This is a line, adapted with
permission, from Luke Jermay.55

We begin by forcing the Ace of Spades on the face of the pack. An ideal way to do this without
going to the trouble of nominating a participant to join you at the table, is to use Charlie
Miller’s Table Spread Force.56 Swing cut half the pack and obtain a break when you reassemble
the deck in left-hand dealer’s grip.

54. See Hatton and Platte, Magicians’ Tricks: How They Are Done, 1910, p. 93. For a more refined version, see
Vernon, Dai, “Matching the Cards,” Inner Secrets of Card Magic, 1959, p. 22.
55. See “The Marksman Deck,” Commercial Product. Vanishing Inc. Magic, 2014.
56. See Riser, Harry, Secrets of an Escamoteur, 2006, p. 15.

135
 Move your left hand to the far right side of your working surface and begin to thumb off
cards from your hand directly onto the table, pushing them onto your working surface in a
spread condition (Photo 1). The thumb pad moves quickly back and forth, pushing cards onto
the table in a linear spread. Ask a participant to
call, “Stop,” anytime. Try to time your actions
so that you’re somewhat near the break as the
participant stops you. The moment she calls,
“Stop,” withdraw your left hand from the
spread, taking only the cards below the break,
plus one card above it: the Ace of Spades. You
leave the other cards in their spread condition
on the table. The illusion that the card comes
from the center of the deck is perfect.

“I’ll place your card here, in full view, and we aren’t

1
going to look at it yet. Now it’s my job to find your
card. But in this case, that’s easy. It’s right there. But
what’s three times harder is finding the three mates
of whatever card you picked. That’s the warm-up exercise.” Place the Ace of Spades face down at
the outer right corner of your working surface.

Square the spread of face-down cards on the table and drop the cards in your hand back on top
of the tabled packet. Now we go through a revelation procedure to produce the Kings, which
are situated, from the top of the deck, in K, A, A, K, A, K order. There are numerous ways to
do this. Here’s my favorite.

I perform an in-the-hands false cut and then flick the King of Diamonds into my right hand
with Eddie Fechter’s Spring Card Revelation.57 Immediately after the King of Diamonds is
shown in your right hand, do a top change, exchanging the King for the Ace of Clubs. Deal the
Ace of Clubs face down onto the table to your left. This is the start of a three-card row.

Before you can locate the next King, you need to cut the King of Diamonds from top to bottom.
Historically, this is done with a double undercut,58 but this move is, to me, inelegant. Here’s a
replacement that looks more natural and requires no break. This move was devised by Allan
Ackerman; my tiny addition is the rocking motion during the mechanics, which helps disguise
what’s really happening.

57. See Mentzer, Jerry, The Spring Card Revelation, Card File, 1993, p. 214.
58. See Vernon, Dai, Stars of Magic, Vol. 2, No.2, 1946, p. 29.

136
 Simulated Double Undercut59
This is a swing cut but with just one card. There are, of course, finesse points which I’ll take
you through here. Begin with the pack held in a modified end grip in the right hand; the right
first finger is positioned on the outer left corner.

Aim the outer end of the pack directly at the spectators’ line of vision and break approximately
half of the pack with your right first finger (Photo 2). Then swing this packet toward the left,
per a normal swing cut (Photo 3).

Move the left hand in position to receive the upper packet, and place the left thumb on top, near
the outer end (Photo 4). Now swing both hands downward so that the surfaces of both packets
are parallel with your body, flattened to the spectators’ line of vision (Photo 5). In this position
it’s harder to discern the depth of the packets.

2 3

4 5

59. See Ackerman, Allan, Simulated Double Undercut, Best of Friends III, 2007, p. 155. The inverse technique,
to bring a card from bottom to top, is something I’ve devised to look the same, even though the mechanics are
different. In this case, the left fingers approach the deck from beneath and push the bottom card to the right. This
allows the left first finger to pivot all fifty-one cards above the bottom card to the left in a swing cut action. If you
experiment with this for a few minutes the concept will become self-evident.

137
 6 7

Slide just the top card of the right hand’s packet into the left hand (Photo 6). As you slide
with your left hand toward the left, move the right hand toward the right, as if completing
the cutting action. At the same time, with your right first finger close the gap between the two
packets in the right hand. In a continuing action, drop the entire deck on top of the single card,
maintaining the almost vertical position of the cards in each hand throughout (Photo 7).

Continuing with the routine, as soon as you complete the Simulated Double Undercut, do a
double turnover to show the King of Spades on top of the deck. I find that in “Matching the
Cards,” you constantly have to remind the spectators what’s what. So while the dialogue may
read repetitive, there’s a purpose to it. “So we found the King of Diamonds,” you say, patting the
face-down, tabled card, “and now I found the King of Spades. Spades here,” you say, turning the
double down and dealing the Ace of Hearts face down to the right of the face-down Ace of
Clubs, “and Diamonds there.”

Perform another Simulated Double Undercut cut to bring the King of Spades to the bottom of
the deck, and then turn over a double to show the King of Clubs. “Got it! King of Clubs. I’ll put
the Club with the Spade and Diamond.” Turn the double down and deal the Ace of Diamonds to
the right of the face-down Ace of Hearts.

As you deliver the final lines of dialogue, casually cut the bottom card, the King of Spades, back
to the top. This can be done in all sorts of ways, but the most direct is a sort of inverse of the
One Card Swing Cut. If you flatten out the pack to an almost vertical position, simply cut one
card to the top, treating it as if it’s a packet of cards.

“So I cut to the King of Diamonds, the King of Spades, and the King of Clubs, which means the King
of Hearts should be right—wait a minute.” Turn over the Ace of Spades at the outer right corner
of your surface and act surprised.

138
“That’s the Ace of Spades,” you say, pausing for just a beat. “And that’s the Ace of Diamonds, Ace of
Hearts, and Ace of Clubs. We’re warmed up and ready to begin.”

RESET
Reset is a breeze since these cards reside near the top of the deck. Use the Ace of Diamonds
to scoop up the Ace of Hearts as you get a break beneath the top card of the pack (the King of
Spades). As you place the two red Aces face down on top of the deck, lift all three cards briefly
and peel the Ace of Diamonds back on top of the deck, and then drop the double, as one, on top
of everything. The top of the deck is now reset.

Pick up the Ace of Spades with your right hand as you buckle the bottom card of the deck, the
King of Diamonds, with your left hand. Execute a Tilt-like procedure, pretending to insert the
Ace of Spades into the middle of the pack, but stick it right into the gap created by the buckle
at the pack’s inner end. You can use the edge of the Ace to push forward a few cards from the
middle, which is a subtlety associated with Howard Schwarzman. Lastly, pick up the Ace of
Clubs and do the same thing, except stick this card directly on the bottom of the pack.

COMMENTS
I have three comments to make regarding Vernon’s “Matching the Cards.”

First, I have experimented extensively with reproducing the Kings immediately afterward. It’s
the obvious next step, since they’re right on the bottom of the deck, at the ready. Yet again, I’ll
advocate for restraint. The reaction when I reproduce these Kings, even quickly, is far less than
the shock of the trick’s climax. I suggest you end on the Aces.

Second, a word about “acting.” Don’t. Magicians always seem to overdo the magician-in-trouble
scenario. I-know-that-they-know-that-I-know-that-they-know that the trick didn’t really go
wrong. We’re all adults here. Deliver the end of the effect with some modesty and let the
changes speak for themselves.

Finally, whether or not you use this trick or this stack, consider adding Ackerman’s Simulated
Double Undercut to your toolbox. The double undercut is an inelegant, inefficient move. It
requires a break and an unnatural cutting action, and it feels wrong. The Simulated Double
Undercut is a practical, natural alternative.

139
 Memorized
Multiple Selection
Forget the memorized deck (for a second, not forever). When I’m
putting together a card-based show, the Multiple Selection plot
is always on my mind. It plays big, gets several people involved,
and has a great dramatic arc. What follows is my “pet” routine, which I often
perform from a shuffled deck and have also adapted to stack work. There’s a
tiny moment helped by the Particle System, but this is easily adapted to any
memorized stack. This is really just a collection of some favorite revelations
from the top and bottom, which is handy both in this application and also for
use in riffing with a stack.

EFFECT
Five cards are selected from the pack. The performer finds each one in an increasingly impressive
way with a multi-phase kicker ending. At the end, the performer manages to relocate all the
previous selections in an unexpected way.

SETUP
The only setup is to load the Ace of Hearts
under the card box. From a shuffled deck,
I like to do this well in advance with an
indifferent card. You can’t really do this
ahead of time with a memorized pack
because it throws off other stack work.
Instead, just pick up the card box from the
table, noticing that the flap isn’t closed. As
you do this, obtain a break below the top
card, the Ace of Hearts. Pick up the box and
place it squarely on top of the deck in your
left hand. Use your right fingers to close the 1
flap and then pick up the box and the Ace of

140
Hearts beneath it in end grip (Photo 1). Replace the box on the table to your right, as close to
the seated participant as possible.

PERFORMANCE
You’re going to force five cards, in order, using a dribble force.60 This is an efficient way
to handle the Multiple Selection because the cards are forced and controlled in order, in one
action. The top of the Particle Stack isn’t ideal for this since the Aces and Kings are likely to
arouse suspicion. Instead, I use positions 6-10.

To begin, spread over the top five cards of the pack and obtain a break beneath the Queen of
Spades (remember that, with the Ace of Hearts removed, the sixth card now falls at the fifth
position). To cover this spreading action, say, “I’d like to have some cards picked, but rather than
going all the way out there, just call ‘stop.’”

Close the spread and maintain the break as you transfer the pack to end grip in the right hand.
Transfer a small packet of ten or so cards from bottom to top, to better centralize the break in
preparation for a dribble force. Allow cards to dribble between your hands as you ask someone
in the front row on the left side to call, “Stop.” Time the dribbling so that you stop at the break,
and then raise the right hand to show the face card of this packet, the Queen of Spades, to the
participant. Ask her to remember it. As you display the Queen of Spades, get a left little-finger
break beneath the top card in your left hand, the Two of Diamonds. Reassemble the deck,
maintaining the new break.

You now repeat this process to force the Two of Diamonds (7), Queen of Clubs (8), Three of
Hearts (9), and Jack of Spades (10). At the end of the procedure, get a break beneath the last
force card, the Jack of Spades, and reassemble the packets. Finally, cut at the break to bring all
five selections to the face of the pack.

Now you’re ready to reveal the cards one by one, in reverse order. This particular sequence that
I’ve developed is suited to the venue in which I perform this act: twenty-five or so people, seated
in front of a padded table. Although the revelations make use of the table, they mostly occur at
chest height where they are easily appreciated. I’ll leave to you the particular false shuffles and
cuts used between these revelations.

After each selection is found, replace it face down on top of the deck and perform a false cut or
two, apparently to bury each selection. Remember, each selection makes a reappearance at the
end of the routine.

60.The concept of repeating the force with a string of cards in a Multiple Selection routine was first published by
Doc Eason. See Eason, Doc and Paul Cummins, PMS Control, Fusillade, 2000, p. 3.

141
 Dribblocation61
This first revelation simulates the plucking of a card from the center of a cascading spread.
“What was your card?” you ask the first participant. “You can say it aloud.” Begin by riffling up
the inner end of the pack with your right thumb, as if memorizing all the cards. “The Jack of
Spades? That’s…twenty-third from the top of the pack.” Now you’ll make it appear that you pluck
it from the 23rd position.

Place your left hand face up flat on the table, holding the deck of cards directly above it in
end grip (Photo 2). Notice that the left hand’s second finger protrudes slightly more than the
others. As you dribble cards onto the table, aim the pack so that the face card makes contact
with the left hand’s second finger along the card’s left side (Photo 3 shows a stop-action view).

In a fast motion, drop all the cards to the table from a height of about six inches. The cards will
land in a haphazard fashion, but no cards will fall out of order (Photo 4). When you reach the
approximate center of the pack, make a fast snatching action by withdrawing your left hand
leftward. Simultaneously, pin your left thumb to the second finger and drag the face card from
the bottom of the spread (Photo 5). The illusion is that the selection is snatched from the center
of the cascade. Turn the card face up to display the first revelation, the Jack of Spades.

2 3

4 5

61. See Jay, Joshua, Dribblocation, Magic Atlas, 1999, p. 53.

142
Occasionally you’ll pull an extra card or two with the face card. This is fine and adds some
authenticity to the revelation. Just stuff the extra cards back under the deck and call attention
to the lowermost, selected card.

As already mentioned, remember to replace this card (and each card you find) on top of the
deck and then perform a false cut or two apparently to lose it back into the pack.

Two for One

I’ve been doing this sequence for years, and
I’ve observed others using similar revelations.
It’s basic but impressive. “I’m going to find the
next two cards with just one hand,” you say, and
as you talk, push the next selection, the Three
of Hearts, from the face into a full palm in the
right hand. Then, hold your right hand behind
your back with the card resting in palm. Place
your right hand behind your back as you
emphasize the difficulty of what you’re about
to attempt. “With one hand behind my back, I’ll
6
have to locate and then cut to your card using just
one hand.”

You’ll now find the Queen of Clubs using a

reverse one-handed Charlier cut and revelation.
Hold the pack in the left hand in a deep dealer’s
grip, with the thumb stretched all the way
across the top of the pack (Photo 6). Split the
pack somewhere in the center by grasping
the upper half with the left thumb pad and
the lower half with the left, four, finger pads
(Photo 7). Maneuver the left first and fourth
fingers beneath the lower half of the deck 7
and lever this packet up and over the upper
packet (Photos 8 & 9). Allow the lower packet
to fall on top of the upper packet, but leave
the left thumb between the two halves (Photo
10). Note that the left fingers drop the upper
packet jogged forward for almost an inch from
the packet beneath it (Photo 11, next page).

With your left thumb pad, contact the Queen

of Clubs on the face and slide it out of the
center of the two packets, to the left for half
its length (Photo 12). In a continuing action,
lever it face up on top of the deck, taking care 8

143
 9 10

11 12

13 14

not to allow the two packets beneath it to coalesce (Photo 13). All this time, your right hand
remains behind your back with the Three of Hearts (Photo 14).

Show the Queen of Clubs on top of the deck and get confirmation from the third participant
that this, indeed, is his card. Deal this Queen onto the table face up for a moment. Now do
another reverse Charlier cut, digging your left fingers and thumb into the right side of the
pack where the two packets meet (Photo 15), and nullify your original cut by returning the two
packets to their original order (Photo 16).

144
 15 16

17 18

19 20

As you do this, you’re prepping the next revelation behind your back. Maneuver the Three
of Hearts from a full-palm position to a back-palm position (Photos 17-19). The card ends
up pinned by its sides between the gaps in the first and second fingers and third and fourth
fingers. “I said I’d find your card with one hand. But I didn’t say which hand.” Move the right hand
back into view, palm toward the audience (Photos 20 & 21). They will only see an empty palm.
Produce the card using standard back-palm techniques. It looks as though you reach into the
air to produce the selected card.

145
 Flip the Three of Hearts face down on
top of the deck and then place the Queen
of Clubs from the table back on top of the
deck. Use a false cut apparently to lose both
back into the pack.

Card to Box Sequence

This sequence leans heavily on Guy
Hollingworth’s “Three Cards Under a Box”
sequence.62 Begin by transferring the two 21
remaining selections to the top of the deck
using two, consecutive Simulated Double
Undercuts (see the footnote on p. 137, or two, consecutive double undercuts if you prefer): the
Queen of Spades on top followed by the Two of Diamonds.

“I’ll find the last two with what magicians call misdirection. Wouldn’t it be impressive if I could control
your attention so much that you wouldn’t notice that I snuck your card out of the deck and under that
box?” Pose this question to both the person who picked the next card (the Two of Diamonds)
and the participant seated to your right. “Go ahead and check.” Obtain a break beneath the Queen
of Spades on top of the deck as you lift the card box from above with your right hand. Ask
the participant seated at your table to turn the card over and show it to everyone. It is, in fact,
nobody’s card. It’s the Ace of Hearts. Under cover of this, steal the Queen of Spades beneath
the card box and quietly replace it back on the table, again to your right.

“I said, ‘Wouldn’t that be amazing?’ I didn’t say I could do it.” Take the Ace from the participant in
your right hand, and, under the cover of this joke, execute a top change, exchanging the Ace
for the Two of Diamonds on top of the deck. “If I could do it, it would look something like this.”
Blow gently on the card in your right hand and display it to show that the Ace has changed into
the Two of Diamonds.

In the offbeat of this moment, execute another top change, exchanging the Two and the Ace
once again. This allows you apparently to lose the next selection, but actually you’ll replace the
Ace where it goes. In the Particle System, if you riffle down the left side of the pack, near the
bottom you’ll feel the click of the shorted Ace of Clubs. Insert the Ace of Hearts back into this
spot, returning it to its original position. None of this is strictly necessary, but it’s going to
clean things up for the reprise ending that follows. Back to the routine…

“One more card left to find.” As you talk, obtain a break beneath the top four cards of the deck
with your left little finger. “But you aren’t watching closely enough. I did it. Go ahead. Check.” Call
the participant’s attention to the card box once again and lift the box from above with the right

62. See Hollingworth, Guy, “Three Cards Under a Box,” Drawing Room Deceptions, 1999, p. 143. The sequence
described above borrows somewhat from my sequence with the “Prism Deck,” which was also based on the
Hollingworth routine. Commercial Product, Vanishing Inc. Magic, 2008.

146
hand. As the participant discovers the face-
down Queen of Spades there, momentarily
touch the box to the top of the deck and steal
the four selections beneath it. Set the box with
the four selections back onto the table.

Retrieve the Queen of Spades from the

participant and apparently push it into the
deck from the rear. Actually, just slide the card
onto the bottom of the deck and keep a break
above it.
22

“And if you missed that you definitely missed the

big ending, where I sneak out your card and your
card and your card and your card and your card from this deck, back under the box.” Pick up the box
one final time from above in the right hand, smearing the selections on the table as you do.
Move the box directly over the deck in your left hand and steal all the cards above the break.
Set the deck on the table to your right as you tilt the one remaining card in your left hand
downward, to hide the lack of cards held there (Photo 22). Use the right hand to pick up the
four selections on the table.

Fan these cards in a spread face down and transfer them on top of the card in your left hand.
Then immediately deal them one at a time face up into an overlapping face-up spread, calling
out their values as you go: “That’s your Two of Diamonds, your Queen of Clubs, your Three of
Hearts, your Jack of Spades…” Now you’ll have just one card in your hand: the Queen of Spades.
Turn it over and call it out in sequence, sliding it under the face-up spread on the table you’ve
dealt, “…and your Queen of Spades.” Of course, now you have nothing left in your left hand.
Some may realize this right away and others won’t. Clap your hands together to emphasize
their emptiness. “And to end everything I snuck EVERY SINGLE CARD IN THE DECK UNDER
THE BOX! That’s it!”

Allow the participant next to you to reveal all the cards are now under the box to conclude.

RESET
If you scoop up the tabled selections and drop them on top of the deck, all the cards are back
in order.

COMMENTS
With a few obvious substitutions, this routine can be adapted for use without a table, surrounded
by spectators.

147
 Weighing Across
This effect provides an interlude without any selected cards. It’s
a combination of two classic effects: “Weighing the Cards” and
“Cards Across.” I’ll go into two versions of this effect: one for
formal audiences, followed by a version that you can do for just
one person.

EFFECT
The performer is able to determine exactly how many cards a participant has cut from the
deck…without looking. Then, the performer causes cards to travel invisibly from one packet
to another.

PERFORMANCE
“I used to love going to the fair as a kid, and seeing the guy who would guess your height and your weight
for a prize. I’ve learned to combine those stunts with these,” you say, pointing to the cards in your
hand between false shuffles.

Let’s assume your spectators are seated in front of you, Pam to your left and Angela to your
right.63 Turn around so your back is toward Pam and then move your left hand, holding the
pack, behind your back. Ask Pam to cut off a packet of cards. Although any number of cards

1 2

63. Michael, Jim, and Dwight are watching from their desks, obviously.
148
will work, these packets will be counted multiple times, so the smaller the better. “Cut off a
small packet of cards but be sure to leave enough for Angela.”

In the Particle System, it’s likely that Pam will cut to the first or second breather, but in this
effect both participants can cut anywhere. You can, of course, extend the deck to her in front
of your body, but it’s visually more interesting (and more fair, apparently) to do it behind your
back. “Now I’d like you to take all those cards and sit on them.”

Turn around for a moment to face Pam as you

confirm that, yes, she should actually sit on her
pile of cards. While the rest of the deck is now
out of the audience’s view, behind your back,
use the left thumb to slip the top card to the
face of the pack by placing your thumb pad on
the top card and dragging it off the top of the
pack, around the left side, and then flush onto
the face (Photos 1-3). Later in the routine, you
will need to glimpse this card to determine
how many cards were cut off.
3

Turn your back to the spectators again and

address Angela, asking if you can borrow her
handbag. Hold it up for a moment and then ask her to keep it on her lap. “Angela, I’d like you to
cut a small packet for yourself. But I want you to
place your cards in your handbag.” When both
participants have complied, turn around to
face the audience again and place the deck
face up on the table. As you set the cards
down, spread over the top card slightly so
that the top and face cards are clearly visible
to you (Photo 4).

The two visible cards will tell you exactly

how many cards have been cut in each packet.
You begin with Pam. Her card is determined
4 by the face card of the pack. Since this card
was the card right below the cut-off point,
you simply subtract one from this card’s
stack number to determine the cards under Pam. In our example, the Three of Diamonds (11)
is on the face, so Pam is sitting on ten cards.

“Before you cut off cards, Pam, I estimated exactly how tall you are seated in that chair. If I stare at you
now, I just have to figure out how much taller you are, and that tells me how many cards you’re sitting
on.” I like presentations that allow me to be both absurd and logical at the same time; there’s
an elegant madness to this reasoning. “You’re exactly ten cards taller than you were a moment ago.”

149
 Extend your left hand and indicate for her to count her cards into your hand one by one. Make
sure she counts the cards face down. This will reverse their order, but the next phase will fix
that.

When the participant has counted all ten cards, pause for applause. Under cover of this applause,
secretly maneuver the top three cards from the packet into a palm position in the right hand. If
you’re using the Particle System, these are the Queen of Clubs, Three of Hearts, and Jack of
Spades. Hand back the remaining cards to Pam and ask her to sit on them once again. I try to
do this non-verbally, to minimize any attention on me touching the cards at all.

Turn your attention to Angela. “Angela, you’ll remember I held up your handbag like this before you
cut off some cards from the deck.” Pick up her bag again. “What I was doing was feeling for the exact
weight of the bag. Now, as I hold it again, it feels slightly heavier.” As you talk, glance over to the
table to get a view of the deck. You need to subtract the value of the face card from the value
of the top card, and then subtract one to account for the previously slipped card. Let’s break
that down.

The top card tells you how many cards there are in both participants’ possession. The face card
tells you how many Pam is sitting on. So, subtracting the face card from the top card will tell
you how many cards Angela has in her purse. The reason you have to subtract one more at the
end is to compensate for the card you slipped from the top to the bottom. If you choose just to
use the markings on the back of the cards, you don’t need to subtract one at the end or slip a
card from top to bottom.

In this case, the Six of Hearts (21) is on top and the Three of Diamonds (11) is on the bottom.
21 minus 11 is 10, and 10 minus 1 is 9. Angela is sitting on nine cards.

“It feels like you have exactly nine cards in this handbag. Take them out and count.” Hold out your
left hand and allow Angela to count all nine cards face down into your hand, reversing their
order. Under cover of applause, add the three palmed cards on top of her packet. Immediately
instruct her to zip them back into her purse.

“But the guy at the carnival guessing heights and weights wasn’t a magician. That was skill. What I
want to show you now…is impossible.” Mime the action of tossing cards from Pam to Angela.

“I’ve just extracted three cards from under Pam and moved them to Angela’s purse. See! Look how
much shorter Pam is now.” Approach Pam and, if the situation is appropriate, push down on her
shoulder, as if trying to adjust her height downward. “Now remember: you cut the cards, and each
of you counted the cards. If I removed three cards invisibly, Pam, you wouldn’t have ten cards. You’d
have…? That’s right. Seven cards.” You emphasize that the participants did all the cutting and
counting, and you conveniently leave out the fact that you touched the cards.

Allow Pam to count seven cards into your hand and then spread these cards face up on the table
next to the deck. Then turn to Angela and allow her to remove her cards from her handbag,
commenting about how much heavier the bag looks. Allow Angela to count twelve cards onto
your hand. Take them back and accept your final applause.

150
 RESET
The cards are essentially back in order after each packet was counted and reverse-counted, but
a small adjustment is still required. With the packet in your left hand held face up, thumb over
the top three cards from your left hand into your right hand and drop them as a group on top
of Pam’s face-up cards on the table. Now in an action resembling a random cut from one tabled
packet to the other, pick up the single card on the face of the talon in end grip (in our example
the Three of Diamonds) and place it on top of the smaller tabled packet (in our example on top
of the Jack of Spades). Now drop the remaining cards in your left hand on top of those cards.
Now when you assemble the pack, everything is back in stack origin.

Weighing Across Light

This is my preferred handling of “Weighing Across” because it’s more practical. It can be done
standing or for one participant. You lose the nice visuals of making a card travel from one
participant to another—and the byplay that goes with it—but this version is quicker.

If you’re performing for just one participant,

allow her to cut a small packet from the top
of the deck. You can determine the number
of cards cut by the markings on the new top
card of the deck. If you’re not using marked
cards, as you instruct her to place them under
her body or in her pocket, point with your left
hand, slightly pushing over the top card of the
deck so you can get a glimpse (Photo 5). In our
case, the participant has cut eight cards.

5
Announce how many cards she cut off and, as
you do, secretly maneuver the top three cards
of the deck into a palm position in the right
hand and then set the deck down. After all the
cards have been counted into your left hand,
wait for the offbeat and then add the three
palmed cards on top of the packet.

Immediately after adding the three cards onto

the participant’s packet, reverse count all three
of them back into your right hand, face down
and one on top of the other, under cover of
a gesture (Photos 6 & 7). “Even though they’re 6
thin, you can learn to tell the difference in height.”
It’s almost as if you’re toying with the deck,
but you’re actually reversing the order of
these cards so that afterward, everything ends back in stack order.

151
 7 8

9 10

Ask the participant to sit on the cards again (or return them to her pocket, or hold them
between her hands, as the situation allows).

Now you will cause three cards to travel from your hand to the participant’s hands. Pick up the
pack and thumb over the top three cards, as a group, into your right hand. Flash their faces
clearly. You can ask someone to remember one of the cards but this isn’t necessary. Place the
cards at an angle back on top of the deck in preparation for the Tent Vanish. First you’ll do
a feint, actually taking all three cards in your right hand, in what looks like a botched palm
position (Photo 8). “Can you see the cards if I hide them in my palm like this? You can?”

Return the cards to the tent position. As you move your right hand over the cards, allow the
three cards to fall flush onto the deck. Move the right hand away in a cupped position, with
nothing concealed in the hand this time (Photo 9). “How about now?” The spectators will be
unable to see any cards concealed in your hand…because there aren’t any.

Make a tossing motion toward the participant and show the right hand empty (Photo 10). As
you do, do a pinky count with your left little finger and then obtain a break beneath the top
three cards. As you ask the participant to count the cards again into your hand, palm the three
cards above the break in your right hand, and then set the rest of the pack aside.

152
This time the participant will count three more cards than were there a moment ago. Immediately
after counting, add the three cards from your palm on top of the packet and, in a continuing
action, spread them off the packet, taking each one singly in your right hand. Display the faces
of each of these top three cards. Observant spectators will notice that these are the same three
cards you just showed in your hands; they have seemingly arrived by magic.

RESET
Cut the top three cards beneath this packet and toss everything back on top of the deck. All is
back in stack.

COMMENTS
The problem with most “Cards Across” routines is that there’s too much counting. You count
Pam’s cards. Then you count Angela’s cards. Then you count Pam’s cards again. Then you
count Angela’s cards again. You count at least four times in most routines, all to prove one
magical moment.

“Weighing Across” is designed so that the payoff of the first phase is the setup of the next one.
When Pam and Angela count the cards the first time, they aren’t doing this to establish how
many cards are present “before” the cards travel; they’re counting cards that you predicted. We
take a moment that was the “setup” and turn it into a climax.

I call this concept “Effect Layering,” though I’m certainly not the first to apply this principle.
I think about Effect Layering a lot when I’m constructing magic. At a structural level, most
magic tricks are about showing conditions before and after an event. I ask myself whether
there are times in which we can turn the showing of conditions into a trick itself. It shortens
the process and adds more magic into a show.

There’s a difference between Effect Layering and simply stringing tricks together in a routine.
You might produce a deck of cards and then cut to four Aces and then use those Aces in an
Assembly. Those are three tricks done one right after another. That’s fine, but that’s not what
I’m talking about here. In “Weighing Across,” we use a magic trick (“Weighing the Cards”) to
prove the condition of the next effect, “Cards Across.” By simply performing the first phase you
automatically set up the next effect.

The applications of Effect Layering extend far past memorized deck work. In my parlor show,
I hand out a prediction box at the beginning of the show. The box is later opened to reveal a
package of candy inside…the exact brand of candy a participant thought of. At the end of the
show, a ring appears sealed inside the candy package. The payoff of predicting the thought-of
candy is the setup for the next trick: a ring-to-candy effect. By layering them in this way, the
payoff of one effect is the setup for the next.

153
 One Card Poker
This trick “unwinds” the Particle Stack. In other words, at the
end of this trick, the pack is secretly reordered into new deck
order, with every card in numerical order, one suit after another.

“One Card Poker” is a version of “The Tantalizer,” a trick with

an interesting history.64 Denis Behr was the first to publish a Tantalizer
effect to permutate from one setup to another.65 It’s ideally suited in this
respect, because the effect is dealing through cards over and over, until you’ve
eliminated all but one card…the selection. It’s a smart routine to adapt to
stack work because the very process of the trick is about disorder. Nobody
would ever suspect that a pack in such a state of disarray was actually being
perfectly reordered, one deal at a time.

In the version that follows, you’ll find two alterations. First, I’ve shortened
the trick by twenty cards. The performer deals 103 times in the original
“Tantalizer,” and frankly, that’s a lot. In “One Card Poker” we’ll deal eighty-
one times. This is still too much, but we’re headed in the right direction.

The other alteration is the one I hope you’ll study most carefully. Despite
all of its benefits, “The Tantalizer” has a major flaw: it’s too linear. The
spectators can see where the trick is going too early, and it lacks surprise.
I feel this when I perform it. He’s going to keep dealing those cards until there’s
just one left, they’re thinking, and that’s going to be my card. Is there a way

64. The exact origins are unclear, but thanks to Denis Behr and his Conjuring Archive, we can date it back at least
to 1926, in a basic elimination effect by Ottokar Fischer. Later versions by R. M. Jamison in 1935 and Stewart
Judah in 1936 moved the plot forward. For the version we associate with the plot, see L. Vosburgh Lyons, The Jinx,
Number 54, 1939, p. 387.
65. See Behr, Denis, “The Tantalizer to Stack,” Handcrafted Card Magic, 2007, p. 43.

154
to perform “The Tantalizer” that infuses it with some doubt? A surprise,
maybe?

Let’s see.

EFFECT
After a card is selected and lost in the pack, the performer offers to play a game of One Card
Poker with a participant. This game, the performer explains, is a simple wager. The performer
will deal the deck into two even piles and whoever’s pile contains the selected card wins the
money. Twenty dollars is wagered.

After the cards are dealt, the performer sweetens the deal. He gives the participant half of his
cards and raises the bet to $100. In three successive rounds, the bet is raised to $400 and the
participant is given all the cards except one. Despite this card being clearly shown as a different
card, when it is turned over at the conclusion…the performer’s card has become the selected
card.

SETUP
While you don’t strictly need the $420 dollars to perform this trick, I urge you actually to carry
four hundred-dollar bills and a twenty-dollar bill with you. It does make a difference.

PERFORMANCE
We begin by forcing the third card in Particle Stack, the Ace of Diamonds, using a riffle force.
To do this, get a break below the Ace of Diamonds and then cut the pack roughly in half,
centralizing your break. Ask someone in the front row, directly in front of you, to call “stop” as
you riffle through the cards at the outer left corner with your left thumb. Regardless of where
you’re stopped, raise the cards above the break to show the Ace of Diamonds on the face of
the packet in your right hand. Replace the packets together and table the deck for a moment,
emphasizing that the chosen card is buried somewhere in the center. Even for magicians, the
lack of control over the selection is noticeable. A moment later, pick up the pack and give the
cards a false shuffle, eventually cutting the Ace of Clubs to the face. This situates the selected
Ace of Diamonds third from the top.

“I’d like to play a game with you called One Card Poker. And we’re going to play for money. Now my job
is to get you to risk your own money in this game. But I want to make it clear you absolutely don’t have
to. You only make the deal you want to make. Okay?”

The participant has nothing to lose, so she’ll agree. “You can play, too,” you say to someone else
sitting to your right or, perhaps, in the front row. You now begin to deal, covering the rather
lengthy dealing process with the script explaining the game. First let’s go over what you do,
and then what you say.

155
 You always deal to yourself first. That’s
easy enough to remember. So deal the top
card, the Ace of Hearts, face down in front
of yourself. Deal the next card, the King
of Spades, in front of you and to your left,
nearest your participant (Photo 1). There
should be about ten inches between these
cards.

Deal the third card, the forced Ace of

Diamonds, on top of the Ace of Hearts.
1
Deal the fourth card, the King of Clubs,
in front of you and to your right, in front
of the other spectator (Photo 2). Now deal
the fifth card in front of you, and the sixth
to your left. As you deal, you say, “One for
me, one for you, one for me, one for you.” This
should be amusing, since you’re dealing to
yourself between your deals to each of the
other players. Call attention to this. “You’ll
notice I’m dealing myself twice as many cards
as I’m dealing to my opponents. My game, my
rules.”
2
Go through the entire pack like this, dealing
yourself a pile face down of Hearts and
Diamonds, and dealing the participant on
your left all the Spades and the one to the
right all the Clubs.

This is the longest deal phase of the routine,

and we pass the time by explaining the rules
of the game. “I’m going to deal out the deck
like this, and whoever has your card wins twenty
bucks. If your card is in your pile I owe you
twenty bucks. If your card is in my pile, you both
owe me twenty bucks.” This will get a laugh, 3
since the participant hasn’t agreed to wager
her own money. “I mean, only if you want to.
Deal or no deal?” (Photo 3).

Usually the participant will shout, “No deal,” and it’s funny. It’s equally funny if she shouts,
“Deal!” In either case, offer her a better deal. Take a twenty-dollar bill from your pocket and
place it on the table.

“No, don’t take that bet. I’ll tell you what. I’ll sweeten the deal. I’ll let you both play on the same team.”

156
Pick up the pile to your right—the Clubs—and drop them on top of the Spades. “Now the odds
are fifty-fifty. You have half the cards and so do I. And I’ll wager a hundred dollars if you win. Just
twenty bucks from you both if you lose. Deal or no deal?” Remove a hundred-dollar bill from your
pocket and place it on top of the twenty with some authority. Again, this is usually met with
skepticism and laughs.

“I’ll tell you what. I’ll sweeten the deal.” Pick up the
cards in your hand and, starting with yourself
(you always start with yourself), alternate deals
to yourself and to the participant. When you
deal to the participant, deal on top of her pile
(Photo 4). After this deal, all the Hearts end up
in order on top of her pile and all the Diamonds
are in order in front of yourself.

“Now you have three times more cards than I do.

Deal or no deal?”
4

“No deal,” she’ll say. Act frustrated but

undeterred. Again, this is funny.

“I’ll sweeten the deal a little more,” you say. “I’ll

give you half my cards again.” So saying, pick up
the thirteen cards in front of you with the left
thumb on top and left fingers beneath. Break this
packet roughly in half, taking the upper half in
your right hand and dealing this upper portion
back onto the table in front of yourself (Photo
5). Take the remaining Diamond cards—the
original lower half of this packet—and drop 5
them on top of the participant’s ever-growing
heap. “Half for me, half for you.” We break the
one-by-one dealing procedure here, but frankly,
that’s less important than momentum. You must act increasingly excited as the deck is whittled
down, and so eliminating cards in batches makes sense. It also saves time.

“And I’ll give you another hundred bucks. Deal or no deal?”

“No deal.” Shake your head.

“Then I’ll give you all my cards except for two. I’ll add another hundred dollars if you win. If you lose,
just give me twenty bucks.” Pick up the cards in front of yourself, take two together in the right
hand, the Ace and Two of Diamonds, and drop them in front of you. Take all the rest and drop
them on the participant’s pile. Act exasperated. “I’ve got just two cards. Two cards! You have fifty.
That’s $320 if you win.” Remove the third hundred-dollar bill from your pocket and add it to
the pile of money. “Deal or no deal?”

157
 “No deal!” Laughs.

“Come on!” More laughs.

What follows seems like a major break with

“The Tantalizer” handling, and I suppose
it is. You can skip this part if you like, but
this is the best part. This fake-out will infuse
the trick with a much-needed surprise at the
end.

6
As you talk, pick up the participant’s fifty-
card pile and casually cut the bottom card,
the King of Spades, to the top. Keep a break
beneath this card after it is brought to the
top.

“I can’t believe I’m even saying this. But I’m

going to make you the ultimate deal in One Card
Poker. Even though I have just two cards, I’m
going to show them both to you, and then make
you one last offer.” Pick up the two cards in
front of you and openly peel the top card,
the Ace of Diamonds, onto the top of the 7
deck. Immediately show the remaining card,
the Two of Diamonds, in your right hand
(Photo 6).

With the Two of Diamonds held face up

in your right hand, use your right fingers
to lever a double face up on top of the deck
held in your left hand (Photos 7 & 8). The
face-up Two of Diamonds in your right
hand doesn’t interfere with turning over a
double on top of the pack. You have shown
your two cards to be the Two of Diamonds
and the King of Spades. Neither of your 8
two cards is the chosen one. Or so it appears.

Drop the Two of Diamonds face up on top of the face-up double on top of the deck, and then
immediately flip all three cards (as two) face down. Deal over the top two cards together into
your right hand and then drop them together onto the table in front of you. Casually cut the
top card of the deck to the bottom (which returns the King of Spades to the bottom of the
deck) and then table the pack in front of the participant.

158
Pick up the pair of cards on the table and deal the top card in your hand, the Ace of Diamonds,
in front of you. Deal the other card in your hand, the Two of Diamonds, on top of the deck in
front of the participant. “That’s fifty-one cards for you and just one for me.” Reach into your pocket
and remove the final hundred-dollar bill and add it to the pile of money.

“Final offer: if the card is in your pile you win $420. If I win, you don’t owe me anything. Deal or no deal?”

The best-case scenario here is that she finally exclaims, “Deal!” When that happens, the audience
erupts into applause. The bet is on! If not, comment accordingly.

“For the first time, and you have to be honest, everyone shout out the name of her card.”

“Ace of Diamonds!”

Turn over the card in front of you and comment, coolly, “I win.”

RESET
None. The deck is now ready to go in new deck order.

COMMENTS
• There’s an important reason I ask everyone at the end to shout out the name of the
participant’s card: nearly every time I used to ask the participant directly, she would ruin
the momentum with the usual bullshit: “You tell me,” or, “I forget,” or worse, she would shout
out a made-up card and it results in total confusion. It’s not that she’s heckling; it’s that this
presentation has a little bit of a challenge element. When you finally give the participant a
voice at the end, she’ll often try to challenge you back, in her own way. I don’t let her.

The point of this presentation is to build up the tension. We don’t want anyone sabotaging
it at the very end. By asking everyone to shout the card aloud, any undesirable comments will
be drowned out by a sea of, “Ace of Diamonds!” Please, learn from my failures.

• You might reasonably wonder why “One Card Poker” isn’t performed with a named card.
It’s an easy matter to ask someone to name any card and then cull it into the third position.
I’ve tried it and I can observe no discernable improvement. In fact, I think “The Tantalizer”
is best with a chosen card that you, apparently, don’t know.

• What a difference a dollar makes. Well, 420 dollars. I debuted this effect in a formal close-
up performance on a cruise-ship; we usually do three shows in a row. In the first show
it was met with total indifference. In the second show I threw in references to money,
upping the bet each phase. People were more interested. Before the third show I went back
to my stateroom to get all the bills I could find, so that I’d have actual money to throw
on the table. The difference was enormous. There’s a visceral quality to offering people a
substantial amount of money and putting it on the table. I don’t always use the money, but I
prefer to when possible.

159
 Devising exactly how the cards are dealt in a routine like this is the sort of thing you can
devise sitting on the floor of your bedroom at four in the morning, scribbling into your
notebook. But the advent of using real cash in a presentation is the sort of thing we have
to discover sweating under the spotlights.

It’s this sort of in situ experimentation that led me to the false show at the end. It’s easier
to leave this out and simply eliminate cards until you arrive at the selection. But in my
experience, this trick elicits golf claps when you deal down to one card. Spectators see it
coming from a mile away. They may not know exactly how their card ended up being the
last one dealt, but that doesn’t make it impressive. In “One Card Poker,” the spectators see
that your card is clearly not the one they picked. And still, somehow, you win.

• The greatest lesson I learned in performing “One Card Poker” is about mindset. Let’s be
honest: “The Tantalizer” is a pathway trick. It’s in this book and in my act because it’s a
pathway back to new deck order. What follows after this trick is utterly amazing: fireworks
with a deck of cards. But no matter how much we alter it, this is still a trick with a lot of
dealing cards. This is boring for the audience, I thought to myself when I started performing it.

And then something happened that I didn’t expect. I started having fun with the audience.
With the right person, the deal-or-no-deal byplay is fun! When you add in the money, the
audience starts to cheer along like it’s a game show. Slowly, slowly, the boring dealing trick
became the most high-energy moment in the show.

Not all tricks are created equal, and we perform different tricks for different reasons. But
if you don’t believe in the impact of a trick when you’re performing, you can’t expect it to
have one.

160
Fireworks Finale
This entire setlist has been designed with this moment in mind.
The variety of tricks, the apparent shuffling, the dealing back and
forth—it all culminates in this moment.

EFFECT
The performer locates every Diamond card, one by one, each in a more impressive way than the
last. To end, the performer shows that he found every card in the pack.

PERFORMANCE
This is really just a series of card revelations that produces the Diamonds. This isn’t the place
to describe thirteen revelations, particularly since many don’t originate with me. In this case,
I’ll simply provide the references to the revelations I use for you to track down.

You begin by referencing the previous effect, “One Card Poker.”

“What you just saw was an example of something magicians call Card Control. The idea is controlling
a card, through sleight of hand, and following it
through all the shuffling and dealing. The card I
was controlling was the…” Look down to the
Ace of Diamonds still face up on the table,
as if you forgot which card was chosen. “…
the Ace of Diamonds in this case. But what if you
didn’t choose the Ace of Diamonds?”

“I’d like each one of you to think of a card. Think

of ANY card in the deck. I’ll try to find all of
your cards using card control.66 If we’re speaking
in music terms, so far you’ve seen concertos, etudes,
sonatas. What follows would be a symphony.” 1

66. This premise is directly inspired by a John Cornelius presentation for his FISM act. See Pierce, Lance, The
Award-Winning Magic of John Cornelius, 2001.

161
 As you speak, perform a series of on-the-table false shuffles and cuts. Now, for each of the
Diamonds, you’ll offer to find each one in order, with a different feat. After you find each card,
you place it next to the Ace, in order, creating a right-to-left face-up spread of Diamonds at the
edge of your working surface (Photo 1, previous page). Here’s how I handle each card:

Two of Diamonds: Tabled False Cut and turn over the top card.

“For example, if you thought of the Two of Diamonds, I would figure out where in the deck the card
is…38th position, and then cut it…to 22nd…to 11th…and now…here.”

Three of Diamonds: Tom Gagnon’s “Slider.”67 This move simulates spreading the pack in a
ribbon spread toward yourself and plucking the Three from the center.

Four of Diamonds: Troy Hooser’s Pendulum Cut, followed by Paul Harris’ Top Shot method.68

Five and Six of Diamonds: Two Card Catch69 (first, cut the top card to the bottom of the deck
using the Simulated Double Undercut described on p. 137). This is a classic move of retaining the
top and bottom cards between the left fingers as the other cards are tossed into the right hand.

Seven and Eight of Diamonds: The Fractal False Cut Production. I’ve explained this already,
on p. 51.

Nine, Ten, Jack, and Queen of Diamonds: Harry Lorayne’s “HaLo Aces,” producing these cards
in numerical order in four cut packets.70

King of Diamonds: Behind-the-back Boomerang card.71

While it’s not my place to teach each revelation here, let’s discuss pacing for a minute. The
order of these revelations is designed to get better and faster as the routine progresses. It’s a
race to the end, in a way. You seat yourself for the first six cards in the revelation, but then pop
out of your chair as the revelations become more acrobatic and physical in nature. When you
catch the King of Diamonds, slam it on the table with authority, in place, at the left end of the
spread. You’ll find a huge audience ovation follows. But you’re not done yet…

“But what if you didn’t think of any of these cards? What if you thought of a Heart or a Spade or a
Club?” Deliver this last line like the surprise twist of a film: Think “I am your father” style drama.

67. See Gagnon, Tom, “Slider,” Too Hot for the Devil, 2013, p. 98.
68. See Jay, Joshua, Pendulum Cut, Destroyers, 2001, p. 123. See also Harris, Paul, “Instant Replay,” A Close-up Kinda
Guy, 1983, p. 126.
69. This sequence is often attributed to Johann Nepomuk Hofzinser, but it appears it was created by Christian
Emanuel Apollinaire Comte. See Racherbaumer, Jon, “Olram Catches a Card,” Cardfixes, 1990, p. 14.
70. See Lorayne, Harry, “HaLo Aces,” Rim Shots, 1973, p. 131. You have to amend the last phase so as not to shuffle
the final packet, but this isn’t difficult.
71. Launching and catching a card is a standard revelation, and one without a clear originator. I learned the Martin
Lewis method from Ricky Jay’s Cards as Weapons, but varied the grip and technique for my own purposes. See Jay,
Joshua, “Boomerang Cards,” Magic Atlas, 1999, p. 56.

162
“But in all that shuffling and all that cutting, I managed to find EVERY CARD IN THE DECK, and
I put each card in order!” One by one show and deal the cards onto the table in order, in a spread
that matches the Diamonds already on the table. You’ll count the thirteen Hearts aloud, at chest
height, so people in the back who may not be able to see the table can enjoy this moment. The
last two suits you’ll just spread on the table: “That’s the Ace of Hearts, Two of Hearts, Three of
Hearts…ALL the Hearts in order.”

Speed up the pace. “If you thought of a Spade that’s every Spade in order: Ace, Two, Three…King.
And that’s every Club in order from Ace to King…”

Without any hesitation I say goodbye, walk to the front of the table, and bow. “That’s it! I’m
Joshua Jay, thanks so much for watching. Goodnight.”

COMMENTS
• Magicians spend an extraordinary amount of time thinking about new methodological
ways to get to new deck order. But I see very little attention paid to how we should “treat”
this moment. New deck order has awesome potential. But it still has to be presented in a
way that makes sense.

For me, John Cornelius created a beautiful premise, which he debuted in his blockbuster
FISM act. A lot of the power in his premise comes from the intriguing opening line: he
asks everyone to think of a card, and promises to find each one. How can he do that? we ask
ourselves. How will he know the card I’m thinking of ? By finding every card in the deck, he
makes good on his promise in a way nobody is expecting. Here I’m borrowing from the best.

• I had many late-night conversations with Simon Aronson, usually in his magic study.
The walls were crammed with books bearing the names of his favorite of magic’s greats:
Hummer, Fulves, Marlo—lots of Marlo. Simon, too, was one of those greats, and yet he
was sitting there, across from me. On the night I’m thinking about, sometime circa 2005, I
asked him a difficult question.

“Do you think that Tamariz’s stack is becoming more popular because yours doesn’t end in
new deck order?”

I can only summarize my memory of Simon’s response because, if you knew Simon, he was
never a man of few words. He explained that while, yes, he did think that this feature swayed
magicians, this ending was misguided. Simon believed that ending in new deck order was
“too pat,” and that it could possibly betray the principle of a prearranged, remembered
order.

And that’s the moment I remember thinking that I should create my own stack. It’s not that
I felt he was wrong. Simon was right for Simon, but his goal was to fool at any cost. He never
wanted to let the spectators see him sweat; he never wanted to show his skill with cards.

But Simon wasn’t a performer, and he never claimed to be. Simon had done what we all
should do: he created the kind of magic that appealed to his tastes and priorities. But I

163
 don’t share Simon’s exact tastes or priorities (neither do you), so I came to a very different
conclusion. It’s this: ending in new deck order is one of the strongest possible closers in
card magic. If you aren’t able to enjoy this feature, you’re missing out.

I wasn’t sure about this until I experienced it for myself. Immodestly, I can tell you that this
act is usually met with a standing ovation. But the audience isn’t just standing for me and
they aren’t really standing because of “One Card Poker” or the Multiple Selection Routine
or the way I caught the King of Diamonds. They’re not standing because the act has a
dramatic build or because each trick has a considered presentation.

That’s all part of it. But those things are about hard work the audience can’t see. At the end,
they’re standing in appreciation of the hard work that they can see. It’s on the table, and it’s
new deck order. This routine is all about showing effort. It’s about letting them see us sweat.

164
Part IV: Miscellaneous
Effects

This chapter is a collection of all the tricks that don’t fit neatly into the other
chapters. The previous two chapters and the chapter that closes this book
are essentially “acts”—clusters of tricks that flow from one to the next. But
these square pegs don’t fit into round holes. It would be unfair to classify
them as leftovers because I use some of these tricks regularly (“Particle
Pair,” “Think as I Think,” “The Same, But Different”). Half of what follows
is stack-independent, and the other half relies on the specific sequence of
the Particle Stack. You’ll observe that several of the plots deviate from the
usual impossible-locations you find in books on memorized decks. It gives
me great satisfaction when I can connect unusual card plots to memorized
deck magic.
Think as I Think
Most memorized deck magic takes too long, so much of my focus
is spent developing shorter, punchier effects. Here, two thought-of
cards are found in about ninety seconds. No table required, and no
overlong presentation. “Think as I Think” works with any stack,
and the order is maintained after the trick.

EFFECT
The magician and the participant each think of and name any card. Inexplicably, each person
finds the other’s card.

PERFORMANCE
As you false shuffle the deck, select a participant from the group who you think might possess
the coordination or card-handling skills to spread through cards without a table.

“I’m going to do a trick for you, and you’re going to do a trick for me. If we do this right, neither of us
will have a clue how we did it.”

As you talk, split the deck in half evenly. The markings make this an easy matter. You can also
use the breather at the 30th position, the Six of Spades, as a tactile marker and then split the
deck three cards above it. Hold both packets face down with the top half of the deck in your
right hand and the rest of the deck in your left hand.

“I’m going to think of and name any card from the deck and you will do the same.” Look up and to
the right, as if scanning your mind for a card at random. The card you name, of course, is not
random at all. You will name the top card of your stack. “I’ll go with, um, the Ace of Hearts. What
about you?”

Listen carefully to her named card. You must instantly determine the pile in which her card
resides. If she names the Six of Clubs (32), I know that this card is in the left-hand packet.
If she names the Queen of Spades (6), I know it’s in my right hand. Immediately hand the
participant the packet that does not contain her card. In other words, if she names the Six of
Clubs, I keep the left-hand packet and give her the cards in my right hand. You’re going to need
the packet with the Six of Clubs because your next task is to find it.

167
 “Okay, you take some cards and I’ll take some cards. Now I’m going to try to find the card you just
thought of, and I want you to try to find the card I just thought of. Here’s how.”

Instruct the participant to spread through her packet face down as you spread through yours
face down. You will openly spread to the position of her thought-of card. “As you go through the
cards face down, you’ll get a feeling on one card. Push that card forward, like this.”

As you spread the cards, simply count as you go. There is no hard science to this; just get to the
thought-of card as quickly as you can. In my case, the thought-of card is in the 32nd position,
which is easy to get to by simply spreading over and counting: 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and then I’m
there. Outjog the thought-of card as you deliver the above line of dialogue. You also have the
markings to help you find your way, but the less time spent looking at your hands, the better.
Instead, I use the markings as a checkpoint, to ensure that I’ve outjogged the named card.

If the card happens to be near the very bottom of your packet, you can certainly count backward
as you spread through. Talking and counting at the same time may seem daunting at first, but
you’ll soon realize that, thanks to the participant spreading through her cards at the same time,
focus is diffused and divided. This affords you the opportunity to count slowly, card by card if
you like, ensuring that you don’t make a mistake.

Square your packet, leaving the outjogged card protruding. Make sure the participant does the
same. Ask her to remove the card from the packet and hold it in her right hand as you illustrate
by doing the same.

Now you must remember where the card you named is located. It is either on top of the pile in
your hand or on top of the pile in her hand. For now, just assume that the Ace of Hearts is on
top of the cards in her hand.

In both cases, you will retrieve the participant’s cards, leaving only the card she selected in her
right hand. However, you must retain your named card, the Ace of Hearts, on top of the deck
after it has been reassembled. So, in this example, with the Ace of Hearts on top of the cards
in her hand, I ask the participant to place her cards on top of mine, extending my left out to
her so she can drop them on top. If your named card were instead on top of the packet in your
hand, you would momentarily place your cards on top of the participant’s pile and then take all
the cards back in your left hand.

At this point, you are holding the reassembled deck of cards in your left hand, and the Ace of
Hearts (or whatever card is first in your stack) is on top. In your right hand is the participant’s
thought-of card, face down. In her right hand is a face-down indifferent card.

Say, “I did my best to find your card and you did your best to find mine. Let’s swap so we can reveal each
other’s cards.” Openly exchange the single cards in your hands, giving her your face-down card
and taking hers between your right thumb and fingers.

“I’ll let you go first. Remind us which card you thought of.” Invite her to turn over the card in her
hand. Wait exactly one beat after she turns over the card. She will be surprised to discover it

168
is the one she named just moments ago, as will everyone else. Everyone will be focused on the
participant, and, afterward, on each other’s reactions. During this offbeat, execute a top change,
exchanging the Ace of Hearts on top of the deck for the indifferent card in your right hand.
Immediately drop your left hand to your side, effectively removing the deck from view. Keep the
face-down card in your right hand at chest height.

“You removed this card, trying to find the Ace of Hearts.” Turn it over to reveal that each of you
have somehow found each other’s cards.

RESET
To put the deck back in order, casually do another top change to place the Ace of Hearts back
on top of the deck and take the indifferent card into your right hand. Fan the deck with the
faces toward you at chest height, and quickly slide the indifferent card back into its position,
wherever it goes. It will look as though you’re simply losing the Ace of Hearts somewhere
at random. Next retrieve the participant’s card and slip that into the fan, back into its stack
position. The deck is now back in order. Roughly half the time the pack will be cut, so you may
wish to cut the deck back to stack origin.

COMMENTS
Pit Hartling’s In Order to Amaze contains “Thought Exchange,” a lovely effect with a similar
plot, which I urge you to study.72

It may occur to you that, if you simply wait until after the participant has named her card, you
can name the top card of the half that contains her card, eliminating the need to “manage” the
packets later. If you find this small convenience worthwhile, by all means do so. However, I
think the effect is slightly stronger if you, the magician, name your card first. I like the relaxed
attitude of naming my card first, and managing the packets isn’t difficult.

72. See Hartling, Pit, “Thought Exchange,” In Order to Amaze, 2016, p. 70. The originator of this plot appears to
be Al Koran. See Koran, Al, “Double Thought,” Al Koran’s Professional Presentations, 1967, p. 89.

169
 Particle Pair
One of the features of the Particle Stack is that there is exactly
one card between all mates. Here’s an unusual effect that makes
use of that feature.

EFFECT
You ask someone to name any pair of cards, like black Sevens or red Threes. Perhaps someone
names the red Tens. You ask the participant to select any card and it’s…not a red Ten. It’s the
Four of Spades; not even close. The performer then turns the Four of Spades face up and gives
the cards an unusual shuffle. When the cards are spread again the two red Tens are found on
either side of the Four of Spades.

PERFORMANCE
This method takes advantage of the Particle System. Whatever pair is named, you’ll know
roughly where it is in the pack, and the markings on the back of each card will get you to the
exact point.

A property of the Particle Stack is that not only is every pair one card apart, but the card
between them is of contrasting color and value. The exception to this is the Sevens. If someone
names either pair of Sevens, forego this trick entirely and produce them in your favorite way.

“I’d like you to name any PAIR of cards in a pack. Like red Sevens or black Jacks or red Fives. Any pair
of cards.”

When a pair is named, you’ll force the card between the named pair using Gary Ouellet’s Touch
Force.73 As long as the named pair is somewhat centralized, this works without any adjustment.
If someone names a pair of cards within the top or bottom ten cards or so, give the pack a cut
first to centralize the target cards. Suppose she names the red Tens. You know, instantly, that
the card between them is the Four of Spades. This will be your target card.

Spread the deck face down from hand to hand and ask someone to touch any card. As you
spread, watch the markings for the Four of Spades. The participant can touch any card she likes

73. See Ouellet, Gary, The Touch Force, Close-up Illusions, 1990, p. 171.

170
above or below the target card and you will outjog this card for half its length. If she touches
a card before you encounter the target card, outjog the touched card and keep spreading under
the guise of giving her a chance to change her mind. If you come upon the markings for the
target card before the participant has touched a card, simply place your right first finger on the
face of the Four of Spades to mark its position. Then keep spreading until she touches a card,
and outjog this card.

Square the cards in your left hand, maintaining your break below the Four of Spades. An
indifferent card remains outjogged and on display, protruding from the front end of the pack.
“You named the red Tens. And despite having a totally free choice to touch any card and a chance to
change your mind, you touched…” In one action, the right hand approaches the pack from above
(Photo 1). With the right fingers, push the outjogged card flush back into the pack (Photo 2)
and then immediately lift all the cards above the break (Photo 3). Rotate the packet face up to
expose the face of the Four of Spades (Photo 4). “...the Four of Spades.” Act disappointed that
the participant failed to find one of her named pair. The end of this force must be done casually
and without any hesitation; the squaring and lifting actions are blended so closely that they
appear to occur simultaneously. The Touch Force is a discrepant move, but entirely convincing
if done casually.

1 2

3 4

171
 Tilt both packets toward yourself slightly
and use the left thumb to peel the face-up
Four of Spades onto the face-down Ten
of Diamonds on top of the left hand’s
cards (Photo 5). This will expose the Ten
of Hearts on the face of the right hand’s
cards, so make sure you have tilted the pack
sufficiently toward yourself during this
action. As you lower your hands, revert the
right-hand packet face down and replace it
under the cards in the left hand. The two red
5
Tens secretly reside face down second from
top and on bottom. The Four of Spades is
face up on top.

The rest of the trick is just smoke. “I know that’s not a red Ten. That’s the Four of Spades. But it’s
also a position in the pack.” Cut the pack to centralize the Four. Now do a series of false shuffles
and cuts. “What I’m doing now is sighting where in the pack the Ten of Hearts is located, and shuffling
it to the position of that Four of Spades. Done.” Now do another fancy false cut.

“And now to find the Ten of Diamonds, and to shuffle it to the same position. Done.”

Spread the deck between your hands and draw attention to the face-up card. Remove the cards
on either side of it and recount the fairness of the procedure. “YOU chose red Tens and YOU
chose this position, right here.” Turn over the cards to reveal the two red Tens on either side of
the Four of Spades.

RESET
As long as you replace the three pertinent cards in their positions, everything remains in order.

172
The No-Card Index
One of card magic’s holy grails is being able to produce any card
at any time. Magicians have experimented with four-card indexes,
thirteen-card indexes, even fifty-two-card indexes. Simon Aronson
coined the term “Open Index,” referring to the memorized deck
as a sort of card index hidden in plain sight. But what about a no-
card index? Imagine being able to reveal any card at any time with an index
entirely contained in your...mind?

My solution is to reveal any card through a drawing. The drawing is actually

a series of mathematical calculations that (correctly, by the way) clarifies the
astronomical odds of the trick. When turned upside down at the end of the
effect, they reveal the initials of the chosen card.

The hidden-in-plain-sight prediction is enjoying a renaissance in the last

decade. If the trend continues, I worry these revelations will become too
popular and perhaps even expected. That would be a shame; for the moment,
though, the reactions to this trick feel to me like genuine surprise. I like
tricks with this dynamic because everyone feels like they’re part of the
revelation. Even if the revelation is onstage a hundred feet away, it somehow
feels personal because it hits each audience member individually, and wraps
a prediction in a far more powerful moment.

The issue for me is that all upside-down card revelations I’ve seen involve
forcing a particular card, which is fine in some scenarios. But it’s also limiting.
You would memorize a particular phrase that can be read upside down to
reveal a card or piece of information.74 “The No-Card Index” is my attempt

74. The best of the bunch is, in my opinion, by Joshua Quinn. See Quinn, Joshua, “Xijatsey,” Paralies, 2008, p. 23.

173
 to move this genre along in two key ways: by widening the scope to any card
chosen, and to provide a presentation that motivates what and why you’re
drawing on a board.

This presentation is as practical for an audience of a thousand as it is for

an audience of one, and the core concept is the same in all cases. Now, what
does all this have to do with memorized decks? Nothing, in a sense. But since
it’s a way of revealing a thought-of card, I use it most often in conjunction
with stack work. We’ll proceed as if this technique is being used onstage,
which is how I most often use it.

EFFECT
The magician and the participant each begin with a deck of cards in their hands. The performer
invites the participant to cut the cards as much as she likes, and the magician does the same.
Then both the performer and the participant each freely cut to a card and place it in their pocket
without looking at it.

In front of a blackboard, the performer then

illustrates, mathematically, the probability
of the trick working. This amounts to
thirty seconds of comedically complex
calculations and a fast-talking word-salad
of computations and a blackboard filled with
computations that look like the algorithm
for nuclear fission.

Despite these probabilities, the magician

and the participant each reveal their cards
for the first time and...they are a perfect 1
match. To prove that the trick was “all in
the numbers,” the performer then turns the
blackboard upside down to reveal the identity of the freely chosen card, hugely printed across
the surface (Photo 1).

SETUP
The crux of the matter is the concept here. What has value, I think, is the technique of being
able to secretly write any card upside down under the physical and mental misdirection of a
chaotic array of numbers.

The pattern is the same whether you write it for someone on a cocktail napkin at a bar or on
an enormous blackboard for a packed theater of people. So, the setup depends entirely on how
you will use the concept. During the coronavirus pandemic, I adapted “The No-Card Index”

174
for virtual shows, and in so doing I started working with a black dry-erase board. You can buy
white dry-erase markers that simulate the consistency and boldness of chalk, and I find that I
like the white on black better than black on white. And through a lens, I’m certain this provides
better visibility.

The only preparation is to have a pack in Particle Stack order. If you opt to perform the matched
card elements, you’ll need a second deck, also in Particle Stack order.

PERFORMANCE
Since the point of this trick is the revelation of the card, let’s spend just a moment on how we
ascertain the card’s value. My inspiration comes from Chan Canasta here. Many of Canasta’s
greatest moments begin with an audience member cutting a pack of cards repeatedly and then
placing one card (or more) in their pocket without looking at it. After he retrieved the pack,
a casual glance at the face card would tell him what card the participant had pocketed. While
Chan wasn’t the first to do this, he was the first performer I saw who harnessed the true power
of this simple yet subtle memorized deck tool.

To us as memorized deck users, it’s one of the most basic, obvious applications. But think of
it from an audience’s perspective. If you can convince them that the pack is shuffled, then the
participant is allowed to cut as many times as she likes, standing far away from the magician.
Then she pockets a card without looking at it. If she doesn’t know her own card and it isn’t in
the deck, how could the magician know it? It’s a potent gambit, and we’ll make use of it here.
I have no particular work on the procedure because it’s already so streamlined. It makes sense
to retrieve the deck and quickly, quietly place it aside. As you set the deck aside or in the card
box, it’s easy to catch a glimpse of the face card, which means the chosen card is the next card
in whatever stack you’re using.

When I perform on a large stage, I’ll carry out the same actions with my own pack of cards.
I remove my cards from the box and place the box in my right jacket pocket. I cut my deck
(which, you’ll recall, is also in memorized order) and pocket the top card (it doesn’t matter
which card it is) in the same right jacket pocket. Once I’ve retrieved the participant’s deck and
identified her selection, I quickly locate the same card in my deck and casually maneuver it into
right palm. How I do this depends entirely on where the card is in my stack. I don’t concern
myself with the nuances of this control. On a big stage, these actions appear invisible to an
audience. I retrieve the box with my right hand, depositing the selection in the right pocket on
the outside of the indifferent card already there. I remove the box and place my cards inside of
it, and then place this deck on a side table, out of the way.

I’ve just explained how I perform this trick when on a big stage. Up close and with only one
deck, only the participant will pocket a card. You can adapt this idea to any circumstances you
may encounter.

Now you and the participant have the same card in your pocket; you know what it is and she
doesn’t. Suppose the card is the Two of Clubs. It’s time to do some math.

175
 The No-Card Index
The basic idea here is that you’ll memorize a relatively simple set of numbers, always drawn
in the same pattern. As you draw, you’ll always deliver the same basic presentation. Once you
know it, you won’t forget it and you won’t need to alter it at all. The only deviation from the
pattern will be in how you draw emphasis lines through your illustration.

The best way I can describe this process is that you’ll write the initials of the card as if you
were writing it in alarm clock text. The math equations create a series of loose box shapes, and
the way you connect the spaces between these box shapes can make any card you desire.

The Seven of Hearts (Photo 1).

The Jack of Spades (Photo 2).

The Eight of Clubs (Photo 3).

The Four of Diamonds (Photo 4).

1 2

3 4

176
On a blackboard, the pattern looks like Photo
5. This picture probably doesn’t make much
sense, which is the point. But you’ll make sense
of it with your presentation, which I deliver
in a rushed, quirky tone that holds people’s
interest for thirty seconds.

And thirty seconds isn’t an arbitrary number.

In refining this piece, I observed that audience
interest wanes the moment you turn your back
and start writing equations (Exhibit A: every
5
high school math class). To combat this, I’ve
made it ever-so-slightly larger than life. I look
at someone in the first row and ask them to
remove their phone and set their timer for
thirty seconds. “In the next thirty seconds, I will
now explain to you just how unusual and impressive
this next demonstration is. I’ll tell you now. This
trick? It’s all in the numbers.” Turn to your
timekeeper. “Go!”

When the audience realizes how quickly you’re

going to finish writing, I find that they stay
invested the whole time. From the moment 6
I shout, “Go,” I begin writing feverishly as
follows.

Along the left side, you create a column of

numbers as you explain “52!”, or 52 Factorial.
Say, “I’ll begin by pointing out how many different
orders there are in a deck of cards. We began by
shuffling and then cutting our cards.” This is, of
course, technically true. But you did the (false)
shuffling and then you and a participant cut the
cards separately. “The number of orders possible
in a deck of cards is 52-factorial.”
7
As you say this, write 52! near the outer left
corner (Photo 6). Continue rapidly writing a
descending column of numbers beneath it (Photo 7). “That’s 52 times 51 times 50 times 49, and
so on until you get all the way to one.” So saying, write down 52, 51, 50, and 49, and then use dots
to fill in the column and write just the number one near the bottom left corner (Photo 8, next
page). “The result is the number eight with sixty-seven digits after it. That means there are more orders
in a deck of cards than there are grains of sand on the planet. And we’re dealing with TWO shuffled
decks.” Write in the number eight and then a series of dots to indicate where the sixty-seven
other digits would go (Photo 9, next page).

177
 8 9

10 11

12 13

14 15

178
 Without stopping, you continue to the right
of this column, where you will establish
seven anchor points on which you’ll later
draw your card. As you draw each one, you
narrate the math behind it. In the script,
you’ll note that in addition to narrating
the math, you also use the opportunity to
strengthen the conditions of how the cards
were selected.
16

“When you take out any card from your deck, the
odds of your removing that card are one in fifty-
two” (Photo 10). When I remove any card from
my deck and place it in my pocket, I have the same
one in fifty-two chance” (Photo 11). “To put
this in perspective, if I predict you will remove a
red card, the probability of this happening is one
in two, and the probability of both of us doing
that is one in four” (Photo 12). “The probability
of us both removing a particular value of a card
are one in 169, which is already impressive…”
17 (Photo 13). “...but the probability of us both
cutting to a specific card in two different, shuffled
decks is one in 2704...” (Photo 14). “Or written
another way, .04%. Stop the timer!” (Photo 15).

That’s how we lay down the foundation. I

vary some particulars and I’m genuinely in
a rush to get it in under thirty seconds. Now
to fill it in for whatever card is selected. First
we’ll write out the suit under cover of an
illustrative gesture line, as if underlining
or emphasizing certain numbers you’ve
written.
18

I’ll take you through the four suits and a few

values, but the truth is there’s no memory
required. It’s pretty self-evident how to draw
out any card, and how specifically to write it
upside down. And as you draw these lines
of emphasis, you reiterate the calculations
you just went over, as if underlying the key
numbers in review. You can, if you wish,
trace over these lines several times to make
them bolder.

19

179
 For Clubs and Spades you will write the letter
C or S upside down.

For Clubs, you make an upside-down “C” as

you gesture from the top number, fifty-two,
to the bottom number, eight (Photo 16). You
might say, “We start with fifty-two cards, and you
end here, with this incomprehensibly large number...
here.”

For Spades, you’ll make two separate arc

20 gestures on either side of the column of
numbers (Photo 17). “You start with fifty-
two different cards, and you multiply them in
sequence,” you say, drawing an arc that connects
the number fifty-two with the middle of the
column. “And if you multiply that out fifty-two
times, you get...this.” Here you draw the second
arc to complete the upside-down S shape.

For Diamonds you’ll gesture twice, from top to

bottom, using two straight lines on each side
of the column that together make the Diamond
21
shape (Photo 18). Again, the same sort of
clarifying remark can be made as you trace out
these lines.

Heart cards are handled in exactly the same

way, except with two gently curving lines that
connect to form the Heart shape (Photo 19).

Let’s continue with our assumption that the

selected card is the Two of Clubs.

“I know that was fast, but I wanted you to understand

just how special every shuffled deck of cards is. We
22 start with one order, and we get all the way down to
this enormous number...here” (Photo 20).

Without stopping, you now move over to the seven numbers charted out to the right of the 52!
column. These numbers form two columns with one number in the middle. A total of seven
anchor points will allow you to create any card value, all under the guise of recapping the
calculations you wrote.

180
 23 24

For example, if you wish to draw a Seven, start drawing at the lower right corner of this grid,
on 1/2704. “You also know that the probability of us cutting to the same card are 1/2704, which we
get by multiplying each of these probabilities...or .04% for short.” As you talk, strike your marker
through the fraction 1/169 at the inner left corner (Photo 21) and then upward and across to
the 1/52 fraction at the upper right corner (Photo 22).

In this fashion you can divine any card in a matter of seconds, upside down. Continuing with
our example, if the selected card is the Two of Clubs, your board will look like Photos 23 & 24.

To put it all together, stand in front of the board, partially obscuring it from view to finish the
trick. The less time people have to stare blankly into the final reveal, the better.

“Now that you understand the probabilities, let’s see how we did. Take your card from your pocket.” You
can reiterate that the participant’s cards were cut and shuffled as much as she liked, and that she
put the card in her pocket without showing it to anyone, and that you did the same.

Show that both cards are a perfect match. This is the first climax. For the surprise ending, say,
“But I told you it was all in the numbers. And it was.” Approach the board and hold it in front of
your body. Slowly, dramatically turn the board upside down and point out the initials of the
chosen card to end.

COMMENTS
• All of this evolved from an informal stunt I used to do for friends on the back of a napkin.
I liked being able to reveal any card chosen by turning the cocktail napkin upside down.
Much later I realized this little stunt could be converted to much larger performances and,
if anything, the impact was enhanced by the larger scale.

When the coronavirus pandemic hit, I adapted this concept to a virtual environment. I
would invite a participant to grab any deck and shuffle it, and to show all the other people
watching that the cards were mixed. As she fanned through her shuffled deck, I would
glimpse the bottom card of her pack and secretly cut my memorized stack to situate the
same card on the bottom. Then I would carry out the instructions of the Cross Cut Force
with the spectator, forcing the same card on both of us. Now I could proceed with “The

181
 No-Card Index” procedure as described. The upside-down revelation had the same impact
on virtual audiences as live.

• Watch the film Good Will Hunting to see what I’m going for when I present this piece: a
furious barrage of numbers hastily scrawled across a board by someone who is thinking
faster than they can write.

• Although the purpose of this section is to showcase the system of revealing information,
don’t underestimate the power of the first phase. The synchronicity of having the same
two cards randomly chosen from two different decks can be powerful if presented with
conviction. I urge you to watch Chan Canasta’s performance footage to understand what I
mean. When you add to this a surprise, upside-down, visual revelation at the end, it takes
the trick to a different level.

• Do some spectators see the upside-down message in advance? I’m sure some do, but this is
the small price to pay for a revelation of this potency. The power of this kind of sequence
is that it invokes a specific feeling of information being hidden in plain sight. It’s a startling
feeling, and one that every single person watching gets to experience for themselves. This
is subtly different (and in my opinion much, much stronger) than the sort of cutesy card
revelations you find on socks or t-shirts or embossed on a wallet.

• “The No-Card Index” takes several hours to learn, several minutes to perform, and it
requires a bunch of additional materials. Perhaps it’s time for an effect that takes just a few
minutes to learn, less than a minute to perform, and doesn’t disturb the order of a single
card…

182
The Same, But
Different
Harapan Ong fooled me with his “Direct Triple Prediction.”75
There’s an elegance to its simple construction. There aren’t many
memorized deck effects that are over as quickly as “Direct Triple Prediction,”
and this makes it ideal for riffing between longer pieces. What follows is
nearly identical to Harapan’s original, except for a change at the very end
that looks a little better and allows the entire trick to reset automatically.

EFFECT
The performer makes three predictions about which cards a participant will choose before she
chooses them, and each one is proven to be correct.

PERFORMANCE
“You would think that the Guinness World Record Holder for basketball free-throws would be held by
Steph Curry or Larry Bird or ‘Magic’ Johnson. But actually, the guy who set the world record for most
consecutive free throws is Tom Amberry. He never played professional basketball. And he set the record
when he was seventy-one years old.”

Cut the deck to any place and note the top card. If you’re using the Particle System, this is
automatic. If not, you’ll need to glimpse the face card to discern the top card’s value. Suppose
it’s the Four of Hearts.

“What interests me about Tom Amberry isn’t the fact that he set the record at that age, but that he nearly
doubled the previous record. So, how did he do it? He said that he didn’t have a routine or a technique.
Instead, he said that he didn’t think about it at all, except to visualize every shot before he took it. We’re
going to try that right now. I’m going to ask three of you something that sounds almost impossible. I don’t
want you to overthink it. Just visualize it, and do it.

75. See Ong, Harapan, “Direct Triple Prediction,” Principia, 2018, p. 89.

183
 “I want you to touch…the Four of Hearts.” Spread through the pack, asking the participant to
touch any card. Outjog this card for slightly more than half its length and note its identity by
reading the markings. You must deliver this line like you just thought of the card at random,
and that the card you name could have been any card. Suppose the card they touch is actually
the Eight of Spades.

“Now you’re going to touch another card. But this time I’m getting…the Eight of Spades.” Again
spread the cards from hand to hand, outjogging whatever card she touches for a little more than
half its length (Photo 1). Note this card’s value, as before. Maybe it’s the Six of Clubs.

“Last time. This time, I see the Six of Clubs.” Spread the cards one last time and outjog whatever
card she touches. This time you don’t need to note the card’s value. But this card is outjogged
less than the other cards (Photo 2).

Square the cards from the sides into the left hand, leaving the three outjogged cards protruding
and in rough alignment (Photo 3). As you raise the deck to chest height to expose the faces
of the three outjogged cards, you’ll do several things at once. But it’s important to remember
that you should move deliberately throughout; no quick or jerky movements. Above all, the
following actions should appear smooth and natural.

As you raise your hand to chest height, extend your left first finger to the outer end of the
lowermost card and push it flush into the pack (Photo 4 shows an exposed view). With your left
thumb pad, push up on the top card of the pack, pushing the outer end of the Four of Hearts

1 2

3 4

184
even with the other two upjogged cards (Photo
5). I find that bracing the pack from below with
my left fourth finger helps secure the cards.
And it’s normal if some of the cards beneath
the top card are also pushed up slightly; this is
never seen.

The final action is to spread the three upjogged

cards into a fan with your right fingers,
maneuvering the top card to your right and the
third outjogged card to the left (Photo 6 shows
this position from the back; Photo 7 shows the 5
audience’s view). You can point out that every
prediction was correct. Although the innermost
card is the top card, from the front it looks like
it’s protruding from somewhere inside the
pack. As you point to each of the three cards,
say, “Swish, Swish, Swish,” simulating the sound
of a perfect basketball shot.

RESET
As soon as everyone has seen the three
outjogged cards, push them all back into the
pack and the stack is entirely maintained. 6

COMMENTS
• I’ve mentioned already that displacements
and readjustments bother me. At the end
of the original handling, you have to insert
chosen cards into different positions in the
pack, and those positions change every
time. This isn’t a huge inconvenience, but
it’s also difficult to pull off without looking
studied. In this version, there is no reset at
all because nothing comes out of the deck.
7
In Harapan’s original, he counts the cards
between each selection to ascertain their
value. In the comments after the effect, he recognized the convenience and flexibility of
using marked cards, and obviously I agree. My only real contribution here is using this
display sequence at the end instead of Larry Jennings’ Optical Add-On, which is a move I
find unconvincing.

• The basketball presentation isn’t for every performer or audience, but I quite like the story,
which is entirely true: he made 2750 free throws in a row, which is truly astounding. Sports
analysts call Tom’s process for shooting free throws “visualization,” and some people are

185
 familiar with this sort of technique. I find that a storyline like this one—which takes about
thirty seconds to deliver—makes a card trick with an otherwise mechanical feel a little
more enlightening.

186
Catch This
Pit Hartling’s “Catch Me if You Can” is a terrific two-phase
sandwich routine that employs both a memorized deck and a
borrowed, shuffled deck.76 In Pit’s original effect, a card is freely
named and the performer nominates two “random” cards to act as
sandwich cards. These cards are, in fact, not random at all; they
are the two cards that happen to fall on either side of the named card. This
is the most satisfying part of Pit’s ingenious method: he creates a sandwich
around whatever card is named. It’s lovely, outside-the-box thinking.

The only weakness with this clever conceit is that the named card is most
often found between two cards that don’t match at all. For example, in the
Tamariz Stack, if the Ten of Clubs is named, it’s found between the Six of
Hearts and the Five of Diamonds. The longstanding convention of using a
color-matched pair of cards—red Kings or black Eights or red Sevens—for
sandwich effects is not only aesthetically cleaner, but also lends itself to a
clearer effect. If you use two different sandwich cards, the spectator must
remember three different playing cards (and which ones play which role)
to appreciate the effect. It’s easier to follow when there are two elements to
remember instead of three.

The Particle Stack solves this particular problem since every pair of cards in
the stack sandwiches a card. I’ve had to shuffle the elements of the original
around a bit, but the result is “Catch Me if You Can” with any named pair
of cards.

76. See Hartling, Pit, “Catch Me if You Can,” In Order to Amaze, 2016, p. 16.

187
 PERFORMANCE
I find this effect works particularly well if you can use a participant who has her own pack.
“I’ll show you something using both of our packs of cards. First, let’s both shuffle them up.” Give the
Particle Stack several false shuffles and invite the participant to shuffle her cards. “Now let’s
switch decks. You hold my cards between your hands, like this.” Gesturing with the cards in your
hand, situate your hands so they are above and below the cards, at arm’s length. Now switch
decks so the participant holds your memorized deck between her outstretched palms, where she
is unlikely to disorder the cards prematurely.

“I want to show you a trick in the fairest way I possibly can. And since we’re being as fair as possible, I’ll
break the magician’s first rule and tell you exactly what I’ll do before I do it. I’m going to find a card
you’ll think of. And to be even more fair I’ll tell you upfront exactly how I’m going to find it. That way
you know exactly what’s coming. I’m going to locate your card precisely between two other cards, like a
sandwich. If I found them between two cards I chose, maybe you might think that has something to do
with it. So, you choose any pair of cards. Black Queens? Red Sixes? Red Tens? It’s entirely up to you.”

Suppose the participant names the red Fours. Whatever she names, you can instantly calculate
what card this pair sandwiches. In our example, the red Fours sandwich the Ten of Spades (14).
“Great. Red Fours it is. That’s fair, right?”

Spread through the participant’s deck and upjog the two red Fours as you come to them. At the
same time secretly locate the sandwiched card—the Ten of Spades in our example—and cull
it to the rear of the deck. Then remove the upjogged, named pair and hand it to a spectator.

“You chose the exact place I will locate the selected card. But we still don’t have a selected card. But
remember, we’re doing the fairest possible card demonstration. That’s why you shuffled this deck of
cards.”

Turn your attention to a second participant. “If I asked you to remove a card from the spread, you
might think I could control it or get a glimpse of it. If I asked you to name it aloud, I would know what
it is. So instead, I’ll just ask you to think of one as they flick by.”

Hold the cards at eye level toward a participant and gesture by riffling the outer end of the
cards extremely quickly. This is just an example, to set up the premise, so flick through in a way
that the participant is unable to see any card for any length of time. You’re going to use the
standard-but-effective ploy of forcing the top card of the deck as you flick through. “I’m going
to riffle through the cards like this and I’d like you to remember one that you see. Don’t say it aloud. And
don’t think of this one, on the face, because I can see that one. Okay?”

Riffle through the cards, starting at about the center of the deck. This way your participant
is unlikely just to think up a card in her head, because it’s clear that you’re not showing every
single card. I like to reinforce this point as I riffle through the cards: “Just make sure you actually
see the card, so it’s random.”

If you’ve never tried it, this riffle force is extremely effective and virtually impossible to fail.
It’s just this: riffle through all the cards rapidly and hold the last, top card for about a full

188
second before flicking it off your finger (Photos 1-3). David Blaine popularized this force in his
television specials, and Chan Canasta used it often in his card work. The creator is, sadly, lost
to time.

My best tip for this force is that what feels quite obvious and exaggerated is actually quite
subtle for the viewer. It feels like it’s terribly obvious that you’re showing them the top card
of the deck and that you’re holding it for longer than the other cards. But the procedure itself
misdirects from this idea: it’s slightly stressful for the viewer to get a glimpse of a card, and I
find that the participant is concerned only with “getting” a card, and not with which one she
gets.

“Did you see one? Good. Don’t forget it, and don’t tell anyone the one you’re thinking of.” Immediately
after this procedure, give the deck a false shuffle or cut.

“So far, I think this is pretty fair. We’ve shuffled two decks of cards. You chose the place I’ll find the card:
between the red Fours. And you just thought of the card I need to find. You’ve never said it out loud,
and you never even took it from the pack. It exists, at this point, as only a thought in your mind. If I can
succeed, I think you’ll agree this will be a pretty fair card trick.”

1 2

3 4

189
 5 6

Retrieve the red Fours with your right hand and, as you do, get a break below the selection on
top of the deck with your left little finger. Place the face-up red Fours on top of the deck for a
moment and, in classic sandwich procedure, steal the selection beneath the pair. Now place your
left thumb on top of the uppermost Four and slide it on top of the deck as you slip the double
out and to the right (Photo 4, previous page). Immediately replace what appears to be just the
lowermost Four (but is actually a double card) on top of the other Four (Photo 5). You have just
secretly sandwiched the thought-of card between the Fours.

Openly cut the pack in half, centralizing the sandwich. “On the count of three, I want you to name
your thought-of card for the first time so everyone can hear what it is.” When she names her card,
riffle the inner end of the deck as if you’re trying to locate the selection. “Got it. It’s thirty-
seventh from the top.”

Now go into a quick series of cuts, apparently explaining what you’re doing. “If I cut seventeen
here, eleven there, and switch this packet for that one, I can situate your thought-of card between those
red Fours.”

To reveal the first phase, spread the cards between your hands to show a card sandwiched
between the named pair. Dramatically reveal the selection by turning it around and placing
it face up between the sandwich cards (Photo 6). This visual of all three cards face up will be
important for the next phase.

Phase Two
The good news here is that the second phase is already done; that is, the red Fours already
sandwich the selection. We just have to help the viewers understand how impressive this is, and
reveal it in a way that doesn’t reveal the arrangement of the Particle Stack.

“Here’s the thing. That was fair. You shuffled the deck. You named the exact location for the card to be
found, and you thought of whatever card you wanted from the deck. But there’s one aspect I suppose could
be fairer. You see, the cards are in my hands. I’m a magician. If this was the fairest card trick of all time,
we would do the same thing in your hands!”

190
Table the participant’s cards and call attention to the cards in her hands. “Remember, we began
by shuffling both cards and I haven’t touched those since we began.” Notice the carefully chosen
phrasing here: we call attention to the fact that both decks were shuffled and not to who shuffled
which deck. “And forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but you chose the red Fours after these cards
were isolated,” you say as you point to the participant who chose the Fours. Then point to the
participant who chose the card. “And you thought of a card in this deck, again after you were already
isolating those cards.”

Instruct the participant to lift her hand off the deck dramatically. Show your hands empty and
make it clear you won’t manipulate anything, but that you want “everyone to be able to see it
clearly when it happens.”

You will always know where in the stack the target cards are located. In our case it’s near the
top. So the objective is to remove clumps of cards from the top of the deck and turn them face
up in your hand. As you get closer to your target cards, you can take them in smaller bunches or
singly. You don’t have to hide the cards you remove in these small packets. You can show them
in small spreads as you place them back on the table face up. You just want to avoid taking all
the cards singly because, unlike other arrangements, astute spectators might notice that pairs
of cards are grouped together here. By taking them in clumps and displaying the cards at only
random places, we eliminate this weakness.

Eventually you’ll come to the first target

card. You shouldn’t act like you know what
card you’re about to turn over. Instead, act
surprised. “Look! It’s one of the red Fours!”
Table the other cards and place the Four of
Hearts face up on top of your hand. “I’ll let you
do this part. Will you take the next card and place
it face down on top of the red Four. Good. And
now take the next card and deal it face up on top of
these cards?” The participant will deal the Four
of Diamonds face up on your hand, creating a 7
sandwich with a face-down card in the middle
(Photo 7).

Take back the rest of the participant’s cards and ask her to reveal the card between the red
Fours. Done.

COMMENTS
This is yet another example where we tweak the perception of a selected card to maximize
effect. Here we let someone name a pair of cards aloud and “see” the selection. But through
the scripting, we position each of these choices to appear as optimally fair. We emphasize the
fairness of naming the pair aloud, but emphasize the importance that the “thought-of ” card is
kept a secret until just before the effect is revealed. And the card isn’t really thought-of at all;
it’s forced from a glimpse position. But these things are malleable in the minds of our viewers.

191
 For more on this crucially important point, revisit p. 98.

One other point about this presentation: whenever possible, I’ve avoided using the term
“sandwich” in this script, opting instead to emphasize that the participant can choose “the
location” to find the card. This seems to me a more refined way of referencing cards, and one
that speaks to the impressiveness of the plot. After all, the impressive part of most sandwich
routines is that we cause a card to appear in a very specific place, not that it is appearing between
two cards. I tend to avoid the personification of playing cards as much as possible: detectives,
criminals, sandwich cards, “meat” cards. It’s an aesthetic choice, and one you may wish to handle
differently.

192
Distilled
In this effect a participant finds her own card by answering a series
of unusual questions about herself. My starting point was a line
I heard Luke Jermay say in one of his effects: “In my experience, the
right card always finds the right person.”

I’m going to describe the way I perform the effect, with a chosen card rather
than a named card. If you prefer to use a named card, I’ll explore handling
options in the comments. This effect doesn’t use the memorized deck, but
maintains it despite what looks like a haphazard sequence of mixing.

EFFECT
A participant selects (or names, if you prefer) any card, and then the performer divides the deck
into two packets, one on each of her hands. He then asks her a series of personal questions, each
more unusual than the last, and depending on her answers, she decides which cards to eliminate
and hand back to the magician. With each question, she eliminates half of her remaining
cards...until just one card remains. In the end, she finds her own card.

SETUP
Any memorized deck.

PERFORMANCE
After several false shuffles, spread the pack and ask a participant to choose any card. “But make
sure it’s the one you want. It’s important you’re happy with this card.” Allow the participant to
take any card she likes and break the spread at this point. Once she looks at her card, if she’s
unhappy, she can replace it and exchange it with any other. It truly is a free choice.

Ask her to replace the card where it came from and then control it to the top with a pass or
open series of cuts. The important thing is to control the selection to the top but keep the other
cards in sequence.

193
 “Your card is now lost in the deck. But I’m not going
to find it,” you say. “In my experience, the right
card always finds the right person.” You can often
see spectators lean in as you say it. It’s just the
right balance of vague and intriguing; people
can’t help but wonder what comes next.

“You’re going to find a card through a series of

questions about yourself.” As you talk, you’re
going to divide the deck roughly in half. You’ll
divide the cards the same way each time, like
1
this: hold the cards from the sides with both
hands; the finger pads of each hand rest along
the underside of the pack while the thumbs
brace the deck from above (Photo 1). Separate
the deck roughly in half, taking the lower
portion in your right hand and the upper half
in the left hand (Photo 2).

Ask the participant to hold her hands palm

up and place the cards in your right hand
on top of her left, and the cards in your left
hand on top of her right (Photo 3). For clarity
of explanation, I’ll assume for the sake of
2 explanation that “left” is your left and “right” is
your right; let’s ignore left and right from the
participant’s perspective. Also, it’s the same in
every phase: the top half goes to your left and
the bottom half to your right.

“I’m going to ask you a series of questions and it’s

critical that you’re honest. Don’t overthink it. Just
answer honestly. You keep whichever cards you like.
Ready?” Now we begin the elimination process.

“Mountains or beaches?” As you say “mountains,”

point with both hands to the packet on your
left, which is the top half of the deck, with the
3 selection on top. When you say “beaches,” point
to the packet on your right.

Whatever she replies, eliminate the packet she didn’t choose. Let’s assume she chose mountains.
Eliminate the “beaches” packet on the right by taking it back into left-hand dealer’s grip. You
might feel the need to over-explain the premise from this written description, but I can assure
you it’s crystal clear in practice. There’s no need to explain that you’ll assign each packet an
identity and that whatever is chosen, you’ll eliminate the other packet. That’s too much clutter.
The premise is visually clear.

194
 Now retrieve the packet left in her hand with
your empty right hand and divide it roughly
in half as you did before, splitting this packet
into two roughly equal halves, taking the
lower half in your right hand and the upper
half between the left thumb and finger pads
(Photo 4). It’s possible to divide the “mountain”
cards between your hands with the discarded
packet still in left-hand dealer’s grip (Photos
5 & 6). The cards overlap slightly but don’t
interfere. You must acclimate the spectators
4
to this visual, as later on it will play a part in
the upcoming switch.

Place the cards back in the participant’s

hands as before. “Chocolate or candy?” you
ask, pointing to the packet on your left for
“chocolate,” and the one to the right for
“candy.” Whichever one is not chosen, you’ll
take that back and add it to the cards in your
left hand in a specific way, as follows.

Throughout this elimination procedure you

must collect the discarded packets so that
5 the order of the stack is maintained. It’s one
easy rule and there are no exceptions: left
is always lower. If the packet to your left is
eliminated, you deposit it beneath the cards in
your left hand. If the cards to your right are
eliminated, you place them above the cards in
your left hand. Left, lower. Right, above.

Now, there is one more wrinkle to this

procedure: you have to keep track of the
selection and keep a break above it. The
selection always starts the trick on the left
pile. At some point during the elimination
procedure, it’s likely that the leftmost pile
6 will be discarded. When that happens, you
still place this pile under the cards in your left
hand, but you must hold and maintain a break
above this card throughout the trick. An example will make this clear. Suppose the participant
says, “Candy,” after your second question. This means you’ll eliminate the cards on the left (the
“chocolate” option she didn’t pick), and the selection currently resides on top of this packet.
“Left is lower,” so you must place these cards under the cards already in your left hand. But
now you must hold a break. The way I usually do this is to transfer the cards in my left hand
momentarily to right-hand end grip, then I retrieve the cards from the participant’s right hand

195
 (which is to your left) and grasp them in a dealer’s grip. Now you can replace the cards in your
right hand on top of those in your left hand, keeping a break.

On to the third question. With your right hand, retrieve the cards left with the participant and
divide them as before, placing the upper half in the participant’s left hand and the lower portion
in the participant’s right hand. “Heels or flats?” you ask, indicating to the left packet and then to
the right. If the participant identifies as a male, I would alter this question to, “Boxers or briefs?”
I’ve found both of these questions are funny to spectators. But if neither of these questions
feels right for a particular audience, I might ask, “Window seat or aisle seat?”

If the packet on the right is eliminated, retrieve it with the right hand and drop it on top of
everything in the left. If the packet on the left is eliminated, repeat the procedure as explained
above. That is, momentarily transfer the cards held in your left hand into your right hand,
maintaining the break with your right thumb; you can use an Erdnase break if you prefer.
Collect the cards with your now-empty left hand. After positioning these eliminated cards in
dealer’s grip, replace the cards in the right hand on top, transferring the break back to the right
little finger. If you wish, you can also retrieve the packet to the left with your right hand and
insert it to the bottom of the left hand’s cards from the end nearest yourself.

Divide the participant’s remaining cards one more time as explained. There should be three
or four cards in each of her hands. “Star Wars or Star Trek?” I have several silly questions I
can sub in or out depending on whom I’m performing for, but I like this one for people in my
age range, and I’m always disappointed in anyone who doesn’t choose the correct answer (Star
Wars, obviously). Eliminate the indicated cards as already explained.

When you have less than about five cards left, it’s time for the only move in the routine. If you’ve
been dividing the deck roughly in half, that will always be at the fifth question. Before asking the
last question, casually cut the pack at the break and openly cut the upper packet beneath the cards
remaining in your left hand, and then retake a new break with your left little finger. This brings
the selection to the top of the cards in your left hand. Your break is now held at the exact place
that the cards held by the spectator must go to keep the pack in stack order.

With your right hand, retrieve the remaining pile from the participant. You’ll divide the packet,
but this time you’ll secretly add the selection beneath the other cards. Bring the hands together
and as you do, secretly push the selection from the top of the deck onto the face of the packet
held at the fingertips (Photos 7 & 8). When you divide the packet this time, you’ll take only the
selection in the right hand and all the cards of this packet in your left hand. Because the packets
are so small, this isn’t a glaring discrepancy. Place the two groups in the participant’s hands, the
selection to your right and the other five or so cards to your left.

For the last question, we need to force the participant to choose her left hand, which holds her
card. The most natural question, in this setting, is one in which you’re sure the participant will
choose the second option. “Kale or carrots?” “Iowa or Hawaii?” “Bell Bottoms or sweatpants?”
and “Horseback-riding or dog-sledding?” I’ve used all of these questions at various times, and
all work well. But have no fear; if for some reason someone chooses the wrong packet, you
eliminate the selection by placing it on top, and simply repeat the sequence to load it again until
you get the answer you seek.

196
 7 8

Eliminate the last few cards, and this time you insert them into the break in your left hand. The
pack is now entirely back in order with the exception of the selection. When you retrieve that
after the trick, you can simply replace it on top.

Act a bit surprised there’s just one card left. “Oh wow,” you say, “just one card left. I told you that the
right card usually finds the right person. You’d have to agree that you had an absolutely free choice of
any card, yes? And I couldn’t possibly know that you like beaches more than mountains, or that you prefer
chocolate to candy, or heels to flats. But of course, you know those things, and the cards know, too. What
card did you select?” Once she’s announced her card, ask her to turn over the card in her hand.

RESET
Interestingly, the elimination procedure is the reset. The pack remains in order.

COMMENTS
• As already mentioned, this isn’t really a memorized deck effect at all; it’s just a trick that
maintains a stack despite what appears to be frequent cutting and mixing. But I contend
that effects like “Distilled” are valuable for exactly this purpose. It throws audiences off the
scent of an arranged pack, and this is a different kind of effect than most memorized deck
magic.

The question, then, is whether this trick benefits from a named card or not. I contend that it’s
stronger as a chosen card—a secret—rather than an openly named card. If you, the performer,
know the chosen card, spectators might suspect that you can manipulate the questions or the
cards to affect the outcome. With an “unknown” card, the effect is more impressive.

If you so wish, this effect can be easily altered for a named card. The most direct method would
be to control the named card subtly to the top and then proceed as already explained. It’s possible
to gain control of the named card during the elimination procedure, but it gets messy.

197
 • Here are some additional questions I’ve experimented with in the past:

» Burgers or Pizza?
» Night In or Night Out?
» Live Fast or Die Young?

My friend Adam Elbaum was inspired by “Distilled” in his own work, and thought of two
excellent, lopsided questions for the end, which all but guarantee the second option:

» Card trick or card magic?

» Sock, Shoe, Sock Shoe or Sock, Sock, Shoe Shoe?

• The interesting aspect of “Distilled” is that it transforms a trick with cards into a trick with
people. The participant’s answers determine her card, so she thinks, and her answers are quite
personal, but never in an invasive way. To me, the more topical the questions, the better.
I’ll often ask someone to choose between two trashy reality stars or two popular sports
teams. As amusing and random as the questions seem, don’t overlook the methodological
advantage these questions afford. We ask the participant questions we genuinely don’t
know how she’ll answer, and that’s clear to everyone. But after establishing this pattern, we
sneak in a question we do know the answer to, to bring the trick to a successful conclusion.

• The theme of “Distilled” is finding your way to the right card through an impossible,
absurd procedure. If there’s time, I’ll often preface the trick with one of my favorite jokes.
Here’s the joke and how I link it to this effect.

I want to show you a piece that was inspired by one of my favorite jokes. It goes like this.

A doctor at an insane asylum was asked to assess three new patients who were all sitting at a table
together. He approached the table and said, ‘I’m going to ask you each a very simple question and I
want you to answer honestly. Based on your answer, I’ll be able to assess your mental health. Let’s
start with you,’ he said, pointing to the first guy. ‘The question is: what’s 1 + 2?’

The first man looked up and muttered to himself, counting back and forth across his fingers, and then
shouted, ‘Three hundred and forty-seven!’

The doctor wrote something on his clipboard, looking dejected. He turned to the second guy. ‘I’ll ask
you the same question: what’s 1 + 2?’ The second guy paused just for a moment and then confidently
shouted his answer: ‘Tuesday!’ Again, the doctor scribbled something on his clipboard with a
disappointed look on his face. He turned to the last gentleman. ‘And what about you? What’s 1 + 2?’

The man replied, ‘Three.’ The doctor perked up. ‘Yes! Yes! That’s right, actually. And how did you
get that answer?’

‘Easy,’ the gentleman replied. ‘I took 347 and divided it by Tuesday.’

The idea of getting the right answer in a totally illogical way is what inspired this next piece. So
let’s start by finding the right answer. Please, pick a card…

198
The Magic Square
I’m amazed to share with you that—unbeknownst to me—a fully
functional magic square is built into the Particle Stack. I didn’t
intend this, but Andi Gladwin pointed out to me that the 14/15
stack element already built into the stack would likely lend itself to
a magic square. I wasn’t able to find it, but fortunately for everyone,
Matt Baker did. All credit goes to him for this discovery—his background in
mathematics and magic made him the ideal person to assist, and I’m grateful
that he did. I’ve merely choreographed a routine around his discovery. I also
wish to thank Karl Hein—an expert in playing card magic squares—for his
advice on how to reveal the various climaxes. I’m pleased this exists as a
feature of the stack. As I was reminded when I started using it: lay people
are amazed by magic squares. Also noteworthy: the trick maintains the stack.

EFFECT
The performer looks away and asks a participant to cut off a packet of cards and count them
beneath the table. The performer then deals out a grid of sixteen cards in an attempt to “find
your number sixteen different ways.” The participant shares that her number is twenty-eight.
To make good on his promise, the performer demonstrates that the values of each card in
every column add up to twenty-eight. Not only that, but every row also adds up to the chosen
number. Not only that, but each diagonal adds up to the chosen number. So does each quadrant.
So do the four corners. In all, the performer demonstrates sixteen ways to find the number
twenty-eight.

SETUP
The only setup required is to cut to stack origin and then cut two cards from top to bottom.

PERFORMANCE
I will say at the outset that this trick doesn’t require a single move or much mental calculation,
but it will involve some extra memorization in terms of how cards are dealt. Since the chosen
number is forced, you will “present” the same grid of cards every time you do the trick, and

199
 thus your presentation will improve as you get more familiar with the grid. But you will have
to memorize the dealing procedure. It never changes, and it isn’t particularly hard, but it is
something you’ll want to remember.

Let’s begin by forcing the number 28; by cutting the top two cards to the face, you have precisely
twenty-eight cards above the crimp at the thirtieth position. If you’re not using a crimp, you
can simply obtain a break below the Six of Spades and proceed from there.

I like to try to get a participant to “hit” the Six of Spades crimp, and I have a backup procedure
if they miss it. I’ll explain both contingencies now.

“Cut the cards in half, or even a little more than half,” you say, and gesture toward the tabled pack,
asking them to lift off a packet of cards. Check the markings to see if they’ve cut at the Six of
Spades (you’ll see the markings for the Eight of Diamonds on top of the tabled pack in this
case). If they hit it, say, “And take the cards beneath the table. I won’t look.” If they miss it, treat this
instruction as if you’re simply asking them to cut the cards before you begin. “And complete the
cut. Now cut them again. Now you cut. Good. Let’s begin.”

In this case, cut the pack back to stack origin and then cut the top two cards to the face. Now
obtain a break below the Six of Spades and do a riffle force to ensure that you force all the cards
at the point they apparently stop you. Ask them to take the cards they’ve stopped at beneath
the table.

In both cases, ask them to count silently the cards they’ve cut. While they’re counting, you
clarify the procedure. “I’ve done some pick-a-card tricks for you. So let’s try something harder. I want
to use the cards to generate a number—not a card—but a number, at random. Do you have a number in
your head now? Great!”

Take back their packet of cards and slap the cards in your hand on top of it. One of many
wonderful coincidences about this trick is that the number square sequence begins at exactly
the cut point you need to force the number 28; no adjustments are needed.

“It goes without saying that I hope you’re amazed by each of the tricks I show you—that’s what I’m
trying for, anyway. But what sets this one apart is that I’m going to try to amaze you in sixteen different
ways, all at the same time. There’s some math, some magic, and a lot of sleight of hand. Let me show
you how it all comes together.”

Do a false shuffle and then ask the participant to name her number for the first time. “Twenty-
eight? Okay…” Now execute another false shuffle, as if you’re positioning cards into a particular
order.

You will now deal the cards into a grid on the table. Unfortunately, the magic square won’t
work to deal in four simple rows. Two of the rows work automatically. For the other two rows
you need to deal in a kind of spiral, which will be explained thoroughly. Also, as you deal you’ll
need to cut two pairs of cards to the bottom that aren’t used in the sequence. At first it will be
a lot to remember, but I’m confident with less than an hour of practice you’ll have this unique

200
routine down pat, forever. I hope you’ll stay with me on this: it’s handy to have such an unusual
trick that doesn’t require a card to be named or picked at your fingertips.

Think of this grid not as one dealing procedure, but instead as four groups of four cards. All
the cards will be dealt face down in performance, but deal them face up for now, so you can
follow along easily.

Here’s how you deal the first group: deal the

top card, Eight of Diamonds (31), face down
on the center of your working surface. Deal the
next card, the Six of Clubs (32), to the right of
it. Deal the next card, the Nine of Hearts (33),
in front of the Six of Clubs, establishing a row
in front of the pair of cards already on the
table. Complete the grid by dealing the Five of
Spades (34) to the left of the Nine of Hearts
(Photo 1, and note the numbers superimposed
on the cards show the order they are dealt in).

Now cut the top two cards to the bottom of 1

the deck; the Simulated Double Undercut
(p. 137) is ideal for this. Combine this with a
couple quick, purposeful, false cuts and then
deal a row of cards from right to left in front
of Five of Spades and Nine of Hearts. In front
of the Nine of Hearts you’ll deal the Ten of
Hearts (37). To the left you’ll deal the Four of
Spades (38), Ten of Diamonds (39), and Four
of Clubs (40). See Photo 2.

Throw in another in-the-hands false cut and

then deal the next row of cards from left to
2
right, closest to yourself, just behind the Eight
of Diamonds and Six of Clubs. Start by dealing
the Jack of Hearts (41) in the same column
so that it is aligned with the Four of Clubs.
Then deal the Three of Spades (42), Jack of
Diamonds (43), and Three of Clubs (44) to the
right (Photo 3).

As you did once already, you need to cut the

next two cards from the top to the face using
the Simulated Double Undercut. Do another
false cut and then deal another group of four
cards. This group is dealt just like the very 3
first group, in a spiral. Deal the Queen of

201
 Diamonds (47) in front of the Jack of Hearts. Deal the Two of Clubs (48) to the right of the
Queen of Diamonds. Deal the King of Hearts in front of the Two of Clubs and to the left of
the Five of Spades, and lastly, deal the Ace of Spades in front of the Queen of Diamonds and
to the left of the King of Hearts (Photo 4). Photo 5 shows numbers on each card that indicate
the order in which they’re dealt.

Examine the grid for a moment and you’ll

observe the many ways this grid adds up to
twenty-eight. But just as importantly, I hope
you’ll agree that, as far as card-based magic
squares go, it’s a very good one. There are a
variety of court and spot cards, reds and blacks,
and only a couple repeating pairs.

In performance, you’ll deal all these cards face

down, so take the time to turn them down in
place now.
4
The most critical issue with a card-based
magic square, as Karl Hein pointed out to me,
is controlling the pace of the revelations. If
you deal cards face up in a grid they are very
likely to anticipate what is coming, and to start
pointing out revelations that you haven’t yet
shared. To counteract this, you’ll turn the cards
face up in columns as you reveal them.

“What I’ve attempted to do,” you say, “is to situate

the cards in a very particular order, based on your
twenty-eight. This is where math meets sleight
5 of hand.” So saying, turn the column to your
right face up one by one, adding the value of
each card as you turn it over. “That’s a Three.
That’s a Six. Six and three add up to nine.” (Photo
6). “That’s a Nine, which makes eighteen, and ten
makes…twenty-eight.”

Now turn over the cards in the next column,

adding up each one as you go. I like to end
each revelation as a question, allowing them to
shout out, “Twenty-eight,” on cue each time.
Reveal all four columns add up to 28; now all
6
the cards are face up on the table. “That’s four
ways to make twenty-eight.”

202
Point out that each row also adds up to 28,
increasing your pace as you go. “That’s eight
ways to make twenty-eight.”

Point out the two diagonals, commenting

that this makes ten ways to make twenty-
eight.

One advantage of card-based magic squares

is that you can move the cards around to
make each set clearer. This is helpful in
7
showing the four corners, which you can
pull out from the grid slightly as you add
up (Photo 7). “That makes eleven ways to make
twenty-eight.”

Moving the cards also helps clarify the

quadrants. For each quadrant, push the four
cards in each set outward a bit as you add
them up. Begin, for example, by pushing the
four cards in the outer right corner apart
from the group (Photo 8). After all four
quadrants are quickly added up, say, “That
makes fifteen ways to make twenty-eight. But 8
I promised you sixteen ways. And the last way
is staring right at us, in the dead center of the
table.”

Pull the inner card of each quadrant back

to the middle and call out the value of each
to show one last way to make twenty-eight
(Photo 9).

203
 RESET
The reset is, as you might have guessed, doing the reverse of the dealing procedure. This will
take some practice, but it’s intuitive if you have memorized the dealing procedure already.

Pick up the last four-card group you laid down; first pick up the Ace and drop it on the King,
then pick up both cards and drop them on the Two of Clubs, and then drop everything on the
Queen of Diamonds. Pick up all four cards and plop them back on top of the deck.

Now cut two cards from bottom to top.

Now collect the innermost row from right to left: Three on top of Jack on top of Three on top
of Jack. Without stopping, pick up all four cards and drop them on top of the Four of Clubs at
the outer-left corner of the grid. Now collect cards from left to right: all on top of the Ten, on
top of the Four, on top of the Ten.

Pick up all eight cards and drop them on top of the deck.

Cut two more cards from bottom to top.

Finally, pick up the last group of four in the same spiral direction: Five on top of Nine on top
of Six on top of Eight. Place all four on top of the deck and everything is back in order.

COMMENTS
• With so much memorized deck magic centered around naming or choosing cards, it’s helpful
to have a routine like this that plays so differently. And while it’s not always practical to
deal sixteen cards on the table, in the right circumstance this is a great option to have at the
ready at all times.

• Matt Baker pointed out to me that if you prefer, you can cull or remove the two pairs you
cut from top to bottom during the dealing procedure. They happen to add up to exactly 28,
so you can force these four cards on four people as an alternate way to get to twenty-eight.
I prefer to make the trick about a number, rather than about selected cards, but it’s helpful
to note this.

• Now that your mind is aligned to the mathematical side of magic, let’s dive into an effect
that uses the mathematics of a memorized deck to discern three chosen cards.

204
Triple Pocket
This effect can be performed with any stack. While the Particle
System utilizes four breather cards and a marked pack, these
features don’t play a role in this particular effect (though a similarly
direct effect is possible using these advantages).

EFFECT
The performer offers to find three selected cards without so much as touching the deck. The
cards are given to a participant, who is asked to cut a packet to the table and pocket the card she
cut to. The remainder of the pack is given to a second spectator, who again cuts half her cards
to the table and pockets the card she cut to. A third and final spectator takes the remainder
of the deck and she, too, cuts some cards onto the tabled pile and pockets the card she cut to.
Without any questions or fishing, the magician is able to discern all three cards. In fact, the
magician’s back can be turned during the entire selection procedure.

SETUP
Any deck in memorized order and cut to stack origin.

PERFORMANCE
Give the pack several thorough-looking false shuffles, and invite a spectator to cut anywhere
she likes and complete the cut. Then take back the pack and cut back to stack origin. “A card trick
in which I won’t touch the cards.”

Suppose you’re performing for three participants, Holly, Karen, and Phyllis. Hand the pack to
the first participant, Holly, and ask her to cut about half into her right hand. “Are you happy with
where you cut? It’s a serious question. If you prefer to replace the cards, you can cut again. It’s important
you feel completely sure you had a free choice of where to cut.” Ask Holly to table the cut-off
portion and then to take the top card of the half in her hand, remember it, and place it in her
pocket. Now invite her to pass the pack to the next participant, Karen.

“I’d like you to cut your pile somewhere in the middle and drop the portion you cut on top of the tabled
cards.” Allow Karen to comply. “Now take the top two cards on your pile and stare at them both.
Whichever one you like better, remember that, and place it in your pocket.” Once Karen has chosen a

205
 card to remember and pocket, ask her to replace the other card on top of the deck and hand the
cards to the last participant, Phyllis.

“There aren’t many cards left, but there should be enough for you to cut your pile in half like the others.
Yours will be the hardest of all, so don’t even look at the card you cut to; just place it in your pocket.”
Make sure that Phyllis places her cut-off packet on top of the tabled cards and then pockets the
top card of her packet without looking at it.

This procedure is, so far, exceedingly fair. But the crux of the method is that you’ve been left
three secret clues—three breadcrumbs that will help you find your way back to each selection.
The bottom card of the deck is a key-card for the first selection. The top card of the deck is a
key-card for the second selection, and the number of cards left in the third participant’s hand
will tell you the third selection.

To ascertain the identities of the cards, you must bend your own rule of not touching the
cards, but you’ll do so in an innocuous way. Turn back around to face your participants. Pretend
to “notice” that the third participant, Phyllis, still has a few cards in her hands. In an offhand
manner, take this small packet back from her as you say, “Now it’s my job to know your cards. I say
‘know’ because I don’t need to locate them because I know where they are: in your pockets.” As you talk,
split the packet between your hands and secretly count how many cards you hold.

This number will vary from one performance to the next, but it will always be a manageable
number. While the participants can cut anywhere, part of the method is that each participant
cuts the cards in play by half. So you should be left with around six cards. Sometimes it will be
seven, or nine or twelve, and sometimes as few as four. But in any case, it’s an easy matter to
split them between your hands, squiggle them in a gesture, and quickly determine the number.

This number tells you the value of the last selection. You subtract this number from fifty-two,
and the answer is the stack number of the third selection. For example, in Particle Stack, if the
number is six, then 52 - 6 = 46, and the 46th card is the Two of Spades. You can do the math
immediately or simply remember the number and compute the card in a moment.

But you must still identify the other two selections, and you’ll learn both cards at the same time,
in the same peek. Take all the cards in your
hand back into your left hand and place them
on top of the tabled cards, but stepped to the
right (Photo 1). Now pick up all the cards as
you retrieve the card box with your right hand.
The glimpse occurs as you place the cards inside
the box. As you move the cards to chest height,
maneuver the uppermost card of the tabled
portion to the right; this is the card in contact
with the right finger pads directly beneath the
small packet. Casually slip the cards inside the
1
box, and take the opportunity to glance down
quickly and note the top and bottom cards of

206
that originally tabled portion (Photo 2). Note
that you need to maintain a slight separation
with the small packet you stepped on top of
the deck, and you ignore these cards. The top
and bottom cards of the tabled portion are
what you’re after. In the photo, you would
remember the Eight of Clubs and the Jack
of Hearts.

The first selection is the card that falls

after the bottom card. In the Particle Stack,
2
after the Eight of Clubs comes the Seven
of Hearts, the first selection. The second
selection is the card that falls one or two
cards before the top card. Since we glimpsed the Jack of Hearts, we know it’s either the Four
of Clubs or the Ten of Diamonds. You have two opportunities to learn which of the two the
participant chose. If you’re in the room, you can turn around to coach the participant to choose
one. It’s an easy matter to watch whether she chooses the top card or the second card. If this
isn’t possible, you’ll be able to fish between the two cards before you reveal it.

Here’s how I reveal the cards. “You chose the first card so we’ll start with you. The cards were shuffled
and cut, right?” Shuffled by you and cut by them, but I gloss over this detail. “You cut anywhere
you wanted, right? And the cards have been in your hand and then in the box this entire time, right?”
Stare into her eyes and reveal the first card. She can remove it from her pocket to confirm.

Look at the second participant, Karen. “Since I couldn’t know where she would cut, I couldn’t know
anything about the cards when you took them. And then you cut anywhere you wanted, right? And with
you, I gave you a choice of what card to put in your pocket.” Stare into her eyes and reveal the
second card. Have her remove it from her pocket to confirm you’re right.

Now turn your attention to the last participant, Phyllis. “Yours is the most difficult. As the trick
went on we cut more and more cards, and you didn’t even look at yours. So you can’t give anything away,
even if you wanted to. If you don’t know your card, and I haven’t touched the cards, there’s no possible
way for me to know that your card is...the Two of Spades.” Invite her to remove the Two of Spades
from her pocket to finish.

RESET
The deck has been cut in three places, so there are four packets that need to be “uncut.” The
easiest way to do this is to spread through the deck and drop the first segment to the table and
then drop the first selection on top. Spread to the second segment and drop these cards on top
of those on the table. Then replace the second selection. Spread the third segment in your hand
and drop it onto the tabled portion. Finally, drop the last selection onto the pile on the table and
place the six (or however large the last packet was) cards on top of all.

207
 COMMENTS
• I devised “Triple Pocket” before I developed the Particle System, so the method doesn’t rely
on breathers or marked cards; in fact, the combination of these advantages renders the rest
of the method quite unnecessary. I describe “Triple Pocket” here for the benefit of other
stack users, and to point out what I feel is an interesting selection procedure.

There are, of course, a handful of ways to make this even more of a magician-fooler. For
example, before you begin, you can invite the first participant to cut the cards in her hands
as much as she likes, and then, to select a card, cut half to the table. This requires you
to glimpse a third card, which is the face card of the small packet you retrieve during
the performance. By glimpsing this card, you’ll know the starting point of the deck and
can locate the three cards after that. But I’m not convinced the extra work is worth the
flexibility of unlimited cuts.

The peek of the top and bottom cards can be handled differently, too. If you’re using marked
cards, this is automatic without so much as touching the deck. By scooting it farther away
from you, you have an opportunity to smear the cards enough to read the marks on top and
bottom.

You can strengthen the effect by allowing a participant to shuffle the cards at the end, but
you’ll have to determine if this is worth destroying the stack. Here’s another way I have
glimpsed the key cards during a shuffling gesture. Toss the small packet from the third
participant into the middle of the deck and immediately break the cards in two packets in
preparation for a tabled riffle shuffle. You can easily sight the top and bottom cards during
a riffle shuffle as you say, “And please, can you shuffle the cards like this for me?”

• “Triple Pocket” is based on “Cheers, Mr. Galasso” by Ron Wohl.77 That trick had a premise
that intrigued me, but a method that was, in my opinion, too basic. All three cards are taken
from the same place in the deck, so it is, in essence, the most very rudimentary stack trick
possible. When you know the place of the cut, you can identify all three cards. Would it be
possible, I wondered, to allow each participant to cut wherever they wanted, with the same
procedure, and still find each card?

77. See Giobbi, Roberto, “Cheers Mr. Galasso,” Card College Lightest, 2010, p.53.

208
Part V:
The Memorized Filter

Nearly all published memorized deck material focuses on using a stack for that specific
trick. But as I’ve already mentioned, I look at it like a system: it’s what’s in my pocket
all the time. So whenever I encounter an interesting card effect, I ask myself, Can this be
done from stack? If it can’t, fine. I’m not afraid to shuffle my cards for the right effect. But
if I can adapt a great trick to my stack work, I find I use it more.

In a sense, then, the tricks in this chapter aren’t really memorized deck tricks at all.
But these tricks—and others like them—do enhance our memorized deck work in a
way that isn’t immediately apparent. While the effects don’t always rely on the stack,
they maintain it, often creating the illusion of randomizing the deck in the process.
This chapter also provides a true variety in effects: causing cards to jump back into
the box, a color separation, a production of cards, gambling material, and a display of
superhuman reflexes.

Each effect is easily adapted to—and sometimes enhanced by—the features of the Particle
System. Since none of these tricks are original with me, and you may be adapting them
to a different stack, I’ll leave some of the intricate technical details to you.
Flush Brush
Doug Conn’s “Flush Brush”78 is one of my very favorite card tricks:
it’s incredibly impressive to audiences and I can’t think of another
effect more gratifying to perform. The only drawback is that the
setup is unwieldy: you require a very particular arrangement of all
the royal flush cards. Fortunately, this setup is built into the Particle
System. As a result, a trick I admired for years at a distance is now at my
fingertips all the time. Full and total credit to Doug Conn for this wonderful
effect. My only contribution is getting into it through the Particle System.

This trick requires a close-up pad with rubber backing: the bigger the pad,
the better.

EFFECT
The performer and the participant share shuffling duties and mix up packets of cards. The
cards are then reassembled and woven into a makeshift “brush.” Using this card-brush, the
magician “paints” the four Aces onto the rubber surface of the close-up pad. To conclude, the
performer paints a strip of royal flush cards...each one in order, beneath the matching Ace.

PERFORMANCE
Cut the Ten of Clubs to the face of the deck and upjog every royal flush card as you pass it. See
Photo 1 for all the cards you need to upjog. Strip out these twenty cards and give the rest to a
spectator to shuffle. The cards are marked and in a known order, so your first instinct might be
to keep the cards face down apparently to outjog cards at random. But I use this effect often,
and I find that this leads to errors. So I just upjog the cards as I look at them and play up the
idea that I’m pulling cards at random. “Let’s mix up the cards. You mix those and I’ll mix these. And
then I want you to divide them into two packets like this.”

78. See Cummins, Paul, “Flush Brush,” The Tricks of My Trade, 1999, p. 99. Conn’s version is based on a Chris
Kenner effect. See Kenner, Chris, “Paint by Numbers,” Totally Out of Control, 1992, p. 140. One overlooked
predecessor in tricks of this kind is Roger Curzon, who originated the idea of wiping a card on a close-up pad. See
Curzon, Roger, “Wipe out the Aces,” Spell-Binder, Vol. 1, No. 11, 1982, p. 197.

211
 1 2

While the spectator is mixing her cards, you must do one more upjog/downjog separation.
With the faces toward you, upjog all the Spades and Hearts and strip them out. Place one packet
on the table and false shuffle the other ten cards. Then table the packet in your hands and false
shuffle your other ten-card packet.

Now you need to run the top four cards of each packet singly from the top to the face. For
example, if you start with the Hearts/Spades packet, pick it up and do an overhand shuffle,
running exactly four cards, one at a time, and then throw the balance on top. Repeat this with
the other packet, running the Ten, Jack, Queen, and King of Diamonds to the face. The order
of the two packets is shown in Photo 2.

Ask the spectator to turn one of her two packets face up. Turn your Hearts/Spades pile face
up. Ask the spectator to shuffle her cards face up into face down, and you apparently do the
same. Actually you’ll do a push-through or an Oeink Shuffle. I use an Oeink Shuffle, but it’s
not my place to describe that here,79 so instead, here are the brief mechanics of the push-
through. Situate the face-up Hearts/Spades pile to your left and the face-down Diamonds/
Clubs pile to your right. Perform a riffle
shuffle, allowing the Ten of Hearts to fall on
top at the end of the shuffle. Now push the
face-up Hearts/Spades pile through the face-
down pile using the standard Push-through
technique. Strip out this face-up packet in a
cutting action, and then place the face-down
pile on top of the face-up pile. This shuffling
action is performed with no attention on the
move whatsoever; the focus will be on the
spectator’s shuffling actions. The result is
the two packets are now face to face. The 3
face-down Ace of Clubs is the top card.

79. I learned it from Gary Plants, who teaches it in his book. See Plants, Gary, The Oeink Shuffle, Gary Plants on
the Zarrow Shuffle, 2004, p. 26.

212
You’re now in position for Doug Conn’s “Flush Brush.” Pick up your pile and perform an
incomplete faro shuffle to weave your cards into the spectator’s shuffled pile. Because your
packet is smaller, your pile can be woven into the middle of the other cards. For best results,
use a faro shuffle to weave these last two packets (Photo 3).

Hold the elongated packet by the larger, spectator-shuffled packet. This is the handle of your
“brush,” and the outer end contains your setup. “You’ve mixed the colors so now let’s paint. This will
be our canvas,” you say, flipping over the close-up pad to expose the rubber surface. “And this will
be our brush,” you say, pointing to the elongated packet.

Hold the pack from above with the right thumb along the left side and the right fingers along
the right side (Photo 4). Touch the outer packet to the rubber surface at the outer left corner of
the pad, and pull back slightly (Photo 5). The tackiness of the rubber will cause the lowermost
card, the Ace of Spades, to cling to the surface. You’ve just produced the Ace of Spades. “How
do Aces sound to you?”

In quick succession you’ll paint the other Aces. Turn the hand palm up, rendering the elongated
packet face down, and repeat the same painting action to paint the Ace of Clubs right next to
the Spade (Photo 6). Turn the hand back palm down to paint the Ace of Hearts, and then turn it
back palm up to paint the Ace of Diamonds (Photo 7). This part looks cool. It feels even cooler.

4 5

6 7

213
 8 9

10 11

You’ll use the same, alternated palm-up, palm-down sequence to paint all the royal flushes.
“Now to finish the painting…” Return to the Ace of Spades and in a smooth, fluid downward
swipe, paint the four Spade Flush cards in a column directly beneath the Ace of Spades (Photos
8 & 9). It takes just a little practice to understand the pressure and speed necessary to get an
orderly column of cards. The rubber surface causes each card to cling, and as each one clears
the pack, the next one starts to cling. It looks strange and magical.

Turn the packet over and “paint” the Clubs Flush (Photo 10). Then turn the packet over again to
paint the Hearts, and revert the packet again to paint the Diamonds (Photo 11). The Diamonds
can be a little tricky because the outer packet becomes flimsy as it loses its thickness. But, again,
a little practice will show how changing the angle of the pack ensures a smooth column.

COMMENTS
If you asked a group of card magicians to list their ten “dream” effects to build into a stack, I
doubt very much “Flush Brush” would be on anyone’s list. But to me, this is exactly the sort of
effect to build into a stack. It’s a beautiful trick, but it’s limited by a cumbersome twenty-card
setup. These twenty cards have to be in exactly the order required, and that makes it hard to
perform effects with the setup deck before you perform “Flush Brush.” I suspect that the setup is
the only reason this effect isn’t more widely appreciated. I consider this trick’s built-in inclusion
a major feature of the Particle System, and it’s one of my favorite ways to close a performance.

214
Chaos
Pit Hartling’s “Chaos” is a superb, magician-fooling location of
two cards. Pit’s original routine80 involves a full-deck setup of a
particular repeating pattern of colors. Happily, an equivalent setup
is one faro shuffle away in the Particle Stack. The other alteration
I’ve made to “Chaos” is to use Matt Baker’s idea of incorporating
Annemann’s selection procedure, which makes the original routine even
more convincing.81

EFFECT
Two participants are invited each to select a card. To do this, the performer turns away from
the audience and invites one of the participants to cut the pack wherever she likes. The two
participants look at and replace cards from the point of the cut. This done, the performer turns
back around and starts dealing cards in a haphazard manner across the table in various piles.
Then piles are switched and shoved into each other, and the whole mess shuffled in a way that, it
would seem, couldn’t possibly be controlled. Despite this, the performer locates both selections.

SETUP
Pit’s original “Chaos” requires a setup that consists of a repeating pattern of colors like this:
RBRR, BRBB, RBRR, and so on. This setup is attained by giving the Particle Stack two faro
shuffles. If you perform the original routine, you can follow it identically by simply giving the
pack these two faros.

To keep things simpler, I opt to give the Particle Stack just one faro shuffle, which results in a
color sequence like this: RR, BB, RR, BB, etc. It must be said that this is slightly more apparent
if you study the setup, but in my experience, nobody has a chance to study the setup carefully
enough to perceive this pattern.82 You might remember that this exact setup is used in “The

80. See Beam, Steve, “Chaos,” Semi-Automatic Card Tricks 7, 2006, p. 63.
81. See Baker, Matt, “Avenging Mandelbrot,” The Buena Vista Shuffle Club, 2019, p. 227. The original idea of having
two selections replaced in reverse order to how they were taken belongs to Theodore Annemann. See Annemann,
Theodore, “An Alternate Detection,” SH-H-H-! It’s a Secret, 1934, p. 11.
82. If you’re familiar with Pit’s original routine, you’re also aware that the color sequence used creates a discrepancy
on the top and bottom of the deck which must be addressed in the handling. The RR, BB, RR setup avoids the
need for this correction.
215
 Curious Incident” (p. 259). Whenever the pack is required to be displayed face up, I opt for this
permutation of the stack.

The deck begins in Particle Stack, and you’ll do a faro shuffle to get into the necessary position
later.

PERFORMANCE
We begin with a subtle selection swindle often used in memorized deck effects, and applied to
this trick by Matt Baker.

“I’m going to turn my back,” you begin, “so that nobody can accuse me of seeing your cards. When my
back is turned, cut anywhere in the pack you like, and place the cut-off portion right over here.” Indicate
a place on the table near the pack and then turn around and allow a participant to comply.

“Kelly, I’d like you to look at the card you cut to, the top card of the lower half of the deck. Remember
that card.” Suppose Kelly chose the Eight of Diamonds (31). “Meredith, would you take the next
card and remember it as well. Perhaps you can show it to a friend.” In our example, Meredith chose
the Six of Clubs (32). “Kelly, go ahead and put your card back. Meredith, now toss your card on top.
And now, would one of you replace the top portion back so everything is back where it started.”

Of course, not everything is back where it started. The two selections have been transposed
because Kelly and Meredith replaced them in the opposite order that they removed them; the
Eight of Diamonds is now the 32nd position, while the Six of Clubs is in the 31st position.
Since the Particle Stack runs in alternating colors, the two selections will always be of opposite
colors, and they will now be the only cards that don’t follow this perfect color alternation.

Turn toward the audience again and explain that for this piece, you require total mathematical
precision. Break the pack exactly in half (you can use the Seven of Spades as a checkpoint that
you’ve split the deck at exactly the 26th position). Now perform one out-faro shuffle.

This repositions the cards into a different permutation of Particle Stack, the same one used in
“A Curious Incident.”

“This also requires that I deal cards in a completely

orderly fashion.” You’ll need to deal the cards
in precisely the correct sequence. You’ll
pretend that this trick relies on complex
mathematical theories that must be closely
adhered to, but as the trick progresses your
dealing and sorting actions will become
increasingly absurd.

To begin, deal the top four cards face down

into a row on the table from left to right.
Then deal another left-to-right row behind 1
this one (Photo 1). This is the start of eight

216
 2 3

4 5

piles. The two leftmost positions in both rows are red cards (and the black selection). The two
rightmost cards are black (except for the red selection).

Repeat this dealing procedure for another round, first dealing a card on top of each pile in the
outer row, left to right. Then deal a card on top of the inner row, left to right.

As you proceed, you can deviate from this pattern slightly. Think of your deals in groups of
four. The first two cards will always be red and the last two cards will always be black. The
exceptions, of course, are the two selections. They will, by design, be dealt among the opposite
colors, which will make them easy for you to locate at the end. So long as you continue to deal
the first two cards of each four-card set to the left and the last two cards to the right, the color
separation will be maintained.

Let’s discuss some examples. You might deal the first card on the top left corner. For the second
card you might deal it in the inner row at the second position (Photo 2). Then you might deal
the third card on the inner row’s fourth position (Photo 3). You might deal the fourth card in
that same pile. The key is to deal quickly and erratically, secretly taking care always to deal the
first two cards to the four piles on your left and the last two cards on the four piles on the right.
Continue in this way until the whole pack is exhausted.

217
 Now you can explain to the audience that you
must switch piles in a very specific way. This
is partially true, of course. You can switch any
piles of the same color. So you might switch the
outer left pile with the inner left pile (Photos
4 & 5, previous page). You might then switch
the inner left pile with the second outer pile
(Photo 6). Switch the piles a few times with the
rightmost four piles as well.

Now you’ll create what appears to be total

6
chaos. In one brash action, smoosh all the
leftmost piles together with your hands
(Photo 7). Do the same with the rightmost
four piles. Pick up the cards on the left (red
cards) in their haphazard condition and shuffle
them between your hands, and then drop them
in a chaotic fashion on top of the black cards
on the table.

Now pick up all the cards and square them into

alignment. You can, if you wish, give them
one more false shuffle, or an Ireland shuffle83
7 that maintains the color separation. To do this,
perform an overhand shuffle normally, but as
you approach the center of the deck, peel the
cards singly from one hand into the other.
Once you’re sure you’ve passed the center of
the deck, finish the overhand shuffle normally.
In this way, the color separation is maintained.

All that’s left is to spread the pack toward

yourself and remove the card from each
color bank that doesn’t match (Photo 8). Pit
throws in a nice subtlety at the end, after he
has removed the two selections but before they
8 are revealed. He asks the participants to name
their thought-of cards and then looks at the
two removed cards with disappointment. He
holds up the opposite selection to each person, showing Kelly Meredith’s card and Meredith
Kelly’s card. “I don’t know how I messed that up.” Then he looks again, switches the positions of
the cards, and says, “That’s better!”

83. See Marlo, Ed, “Red/Black Shuffle,” Estimation (Revolutionary Card Technique), 1962, p. 32.

218
 COMMENTS
Your first instinct might be to dispense with the chaotic dealing and instead deal the cards
evenly into the eight piles. This is an anti-faro procedure and will effectively put the cards back
into Particle Stack. But I think it’s important always to prioritize impact over practicality. The
strength of “Chaos” is in, well, the chaos of the shuffling. To me, that’s not worth compromising.

219
 Rubbed Away
This is a rare “visual” effect that works well from a memorized
deck. Joel Givens devised this terrific little sequence,84 which
happens to work perfectly with any card in the Particle Stack
(thanks to the alternating pairs of cards). Here’s the handling,
which you can perform with any named card. Suppose someone
names the Three of Spades. Cut this card to the top of the deck and explain
that you’ll cause the card to disappear by rubbing it. If you have a table you
can perform it on your working surface. But it’s such a great interlude for
strolling that I usually do it on the material of my trousers, raising my thigh
to a horizontal position for the moment required.

With the card face down on top of the deck in the left hand, thumb it over for half its length
and move toward your working surface. Move your right hand under the card and lever the
card face up on top of the deck and then smear it onto the table, continuing the rubbing action
back and forth with the card (Photos 1 & 2).

Lift your hand and act surprised to find it still there, still visible. Place it back on top of the
deck and as you do, catch a break beneath the top two cards of the pack. “I forgot. The card is

1 2

84. See Jay, Joshua, Session: The Magic of Joel Givens, 2007, p.212.

220
 3 4

5 6

7 8

supposed to be face down.” As you talk, pick up the double above the break in your right hand by
grasping at the center of the right side, thumb above and fingers beneath (Photo 3).

Use the double to lever the deck face up, sideways, like a book (Photo 4). Now pin the double in
place with your left thumb from above and brace it with the left fingers from beneath (Photo
5). You’ll now repeat the same turnover-and-rub action as before, but this time you’ll leave
the double on the face of the deck and move the right hand away with nothing underneath it
(Photos 6-9). Lift the hand to show that the named card has disappeared.

221
 What makes Givens’ sequence effective is that the face card seems to remain the same before
and after the rubbing action. Actually, it subtly changes from one card into its mate, but because
the cards are so similar, this goes unnoticed. In the case of the Three of Spades, the Jack of
Hearts on the face of the packet changes into the Jack of Diamonds.

All the Spades and Diamonds in the Particle Stack are sandwiched by mates. Hearts and Clubs
are surrounded by pseudo-mates—cards that are one value apart from each other but of the
same color. So in those cases, the face card might change from a black Eight to a black Seven or
a red Queen to a red King. This works just as well.

The named card is now reversed second from the face. After rubbing it invisible, mime the
actions of picking up the invisible card, and hand it to a participant. “It’s still there, and I can
prove it. Take the card and place it back in the pack.” Turn the deck face down in your right hand
and swing cut the top half into your left hand. “Here, put the card back in the pack.” Hold out your
left hand so the participant can replace the invisible card on top of this packet. “Whoops. You put
it back upside down.” So saying, drop the cards in your right hand on top of the left-hand cards
and then immediately spread the pack to reveal the face-up selection. “It still works.” Remove
this card and replace it face down in its place. Now all is reset.

222
Another Bottom
Feeder
Tucked away in a little-known book called Ah-Ha! is a lovely card
to box by Eric Anderson.85 I believe converting this to a thought-
of card enhances the effect without any extra work. This is another
application of what I feel is an interesting wrinkle in memorized deck magic:
using a premise as both a presentation and a method. Similar to “The Imaginary
Card Trick” (p. 105), the byplay of asking someone to remove (and then replace)
an imaginary card from the pack provides a memorable, playful alternative
rather than simply asking someone to name a card. But it also provides us with a
justification for spreading through the deck to rapidly, secretly, control whatever
card is named. This control is entirely motivated by the premise.

In effect, the two black Kings are isolated in a card box which is placed on the table. The
magician spreads through the other cards and invites a participant to pretend to remove an
invisible, imaginary card. She announces whatever she would like this card to be and pretends
to slip it back into the deck. The magician, not wanting to be left out of the make-believe
game, mimes tossing the invisible card into the box, between the black Kings. Immediately
the magician shows that the imaginary has become reality, as he removes the named card from
between the Kings...inside the box.

This effect will work in any stack, but it works particularly well from the top of the Particle
Stack since the best mates to use are court cards. If you cut the top card, the Ace of Hearts, to
the bottom, you’re set to perform with the black Kings.

Push over the top card, the King of Spades, and secretly obtain a break beneath the second
card, the Ace of Diamonds. Flip the King of Spades face up on top of the deck and immediately
pick up both cards above the break as one in right-hand end grip. Use the double in your right
hand to flip the new top card face up, the King of Clubs. Thumb over this card into the right
hand, displayed face up and spread beneath the King of Spades (Photo 1). The face-down Ace
of Diamonds is secretly concealed between them.

85. See Anderson, Eric and David Harkey, “Bottom Feeder,” Ah-Ha!, 1997, p. 50.

223
 1 2

3 4

“We’ll try a little demonstration where you have to determine what’s real and what’s not. I’ll place the two
black Kings in the card box. It’s safe to assume that part is real.” As you talk, square the apparent pair
of Kings over the deck for a moment, but secretly, silently drop both of the lower cards on top
of the deck. In a continuing action with just the King of Spades, move forward with this card,
momentarily holding it propped above the deck a few inches between the left thumb and first
finger (Photo 2). Treat this card as if it’s a pair of cards by squaring it at the ends.

With your newly freed right hand, retrieve the card box from the table. Orient the thumb notch
uppermost, and carefully feed what appears to be the pair of Kings into the box. Actually, it’s
just the King of Spades (Photos 3 & 4).

With your left fingers close the flap on the card box and place it on the table to your left, angled
so the opening of the box faces toward your viewers (Photo 5).

“I’m going to spread through these cards and I’d like you to take any card you like. But here’s the weird
part. I just want you to imagine that the card you’re taking is imaginary. It’s there, but it’s invisible.” You
must begin by executing a multiple push, pushing off the top two cards (the Ace of Diamonds
and the reversed King of Clubs) roughly squared as one into your right hand (Photo 6). This
doesn’t have to look like a single card, but you can’t expose the reversed condition of the
lowermost card of the pair. Now spread the pack on top of this double, positioning these two
cards beneath the spread in cull position. This sequence is performed casually while explaining
the premise of the effect.
224
Spread over only about ten cards and then
pause and break the spread (Photo 7). Appear
to hand the participant an imaginary card and
encourage her to take it. “Go ahead! Take that
imaginary card and hold it up. Feel it. Now, that
card can be whatever you want it to be. What would
you like that card to be?”

Suppose she says the Eight of Hearts. You

know that this is the 29th card in the stack.
Using the markings (or a glimpse and counting
5
if you’re using another stack or system), you
must now spread to the indicated place in your
stack. Along the way, you can pause and break
the spread, both to emphasize the fairness of
the premise and also to read the markings
(or get the necessary glimpses). “A lot of
people would have thought of this one,” you say,
pointing to a random card in the spread, “the
Queen of Hearts. That’s a very commonly thought-
of card.” Keep spreading until you come to the
29th card. Cull the Eight of Hearts beneath
the spread and beneath the reversed King
of Spades as you say, “Or this card, the Ace of 6
Spades. That’s a common one. But you thought of
an unusual one. What was it again?”

The script seems arbitrary, but it serves a

few purposes. It emphasizes that the card is
thought-of and not named. It also calls to
attention that when cards are named, “most
people” name obvious, predictable cards, but
that this participant named one that is somehow
more obscure. This moment in the script also
covers the control of a card with the make-
believe premise. Finally, the last line, in which
you apparently forget the named card, helps 7
shorten the temporal distance between the
moment the card was named and the moment
it will be revealed. Ask the participant to slip her imaginary card back into the deck anywhere
she likes.

Square the pack, bringing the three cards beneath the spread to the bottom. “Now it’s my turn
to do something imaginary.” Mime the action of plucking a card from the deck and tossing it
toward the box. Under cover of this action, perform a buckle with your left first finger, causing
the bottom few cards to separate slightly (Photo 8). Insert your left little finger above the King
of Clubs, which is the second card from the face.

225
 8 9

10 11

Transfer the cards into right-hand end grip, overtaking the break with the right thumb
(Photo 9).

Now it’s time for Eric Anderson’s terrific Bottom Feeder sleight. Pick up the box with your left
hand and shake it so everyone can hear what appears to be three cards rattling around inside.
Pin the box in an angled position on top of the deck (Photo 10). The box is positioned with
the thumb notch uppermost and the opening toward your left and slightly angled toward the
spectators. It’s held in place by the right first finger, which frees up your left hand.

With the backs of your left fingers, flick open the card box. Now reach inside and pull the
King of Spades out halfway, treating this card like a squared, small packet (Photo 11). Release
your grip on the card with your left hand for just a moment (Photo 12). In a continuing action,
reposition your left hand palm up beneath the box and slide the King of Spades “packet” carefully
from the box by holding it by the sides between your left thumb and fingers (Photo 13).

Two actions now happen simultaneously. First, you release your grip on the “packet” in your
left hand, allowing the King of Spades to fall onto your left palm. At the same time, move your
left hand under the deck (and thus under the card box). Drop the two cards below the right
thumb break onto the King of Spades (Photo 14). It’s not critical that these cards land entirely
squarely on the King of Spades. It’s supposed to be a packet of cards, and now, finally, it is. In a
continuing action, place your left thumb on top of the card box (Photo 15).

226
 12 13

14 15

16 17

As you move the hands apart, slide the card box into your left hand between the thumb and first
finger, held deep in the webbing of the right hand (Photo 16). The box is only in the left hand
for a split second, as you immediately toss it forward and onto the table (Photo 17). At the same
time, spread the cards in your right hand face down on the table.

This add-on takes three dense paragraphs to explain. In practice, all of these actions flow
naturally into one another, and the whole sequence is about two seconds long. If you’re casual
with it, the illusion created is that the box is never quite squared with the deck, and that the
cards inside the box are isolated from the moment they are removed.

227
 All that remains is to spread the packet and reveal the reversed, real card between the Kings.
No need to add a corny tagline about imagination becoming reality here. I think people get it.

RESET
The selection must be returned from where it came. The Kings go back on top and the two red
Aces on bottom can be easily and casually cut back into position between tricks.

COMMENTS
I wrote earlier (p. 94) about approaching memorized deck magic from a standpoint of premise
rather than technique, and this is another example of that line of thinking. I like this synergy
of presentation and method. We usually think of culling a card as a technique. But here we can
think of it as a premise. The idea is that a participant is removing and replacing an invisible
card. This premise provides the necessary cover to cull a named card in the pack. I spend a lot
of time thinking about other ways I can build effects where the premise and method intersect
in secret, useful ways.

228
Matching Hand
The very best gambling routines, I think, are the ones that don’t
actually require intimate knowledge of a particular game or its
rules. This effect will be most impressive to poker players, but
enjoyable to even those who don’t understand the rules of poker.
I have admired similar effects in the repertoires of Pit Hartling,
Denis Behr, and Jimmy Ichihana, and I wanted to incorporate this feature
into the Particle Stack.86

EFFECT
The performer deals several hands of poker and allows a participant to freely choose any hand
she likes. The cards are turned face up one by one, and the performer attempts to “duplicate”
the chosen hand of cards, one card at a time, by locating its mate. Even when the participant
chooses the order of the cards for the performer to find, each card is successfully located.

SETUP
None, other than beginning in stack origin with the Particle System.

PERFORMANCE
“Poker. Blackjack. Gin Rummy. It doesn’t matter what game you’re playing. The ultimate measure of a
card sharp is being able to locate any desired card, at any time. That’s what I’m going to attempt to do
right now.”

As you talk, thumb over the top two cards of the deck face down into your right hand. Drop
them on the table to your left and then take another pair of cards and drop them to the right
of the first two cards, forming a row. Take a third pair of cards and make a third pile in the
row, and then take one final pair of cards and deal it to the right of the other three piles. You’ve
essentially dealt the first round in a four-handed game of cards, but you dealt the cards two at
a time.

86. See Hartling, Pit, “Duplicity,” In Order to Amaze, 2015, p. 82. Also see Denis Behr’s “Mating Season,” Handcrafted
Card Magic, Vol 3, 2018, p. 29) and Jimmy Ichihana’s “Shortcut to Winning Go Fish,” A Gallon of Wonder, 2022.
Ed Marlo pioneered the plot with “The Matching Miracle,” The New TOPS, July 1966, p. 20.

229
 Of course, you don’t hide this fact or call attention to it. You haven’t mentioned what game
you’re playing, nor is it important for the overall impact of the trick. Dealing cards in pairs is,
in terms of your motivation, about dealing quickly for demonstrative purposes.

When you’re finished dealing the first round of pairs, repeat this process, dropping two cards,
in sequence, on top of each tabled pair. Say, “Let’s suppose we’re playing poker. The game doesn’t
matter, but in draw poker each hand has five cards…”

To complete the last round of dealing you will deal one card at a time, but on the second hand
you must execute a second deal. So, the first card of the last round is the Five of Hearts, which
is dealt on top of the left-most pile. This is followed by a second deal, which allows you to place
the Five of Diamonds on the second hand.87 You conclude by dealing single cards on the third
and fourth pile. When you’re done dealing
four hands of five cards, each hand will be
face down on the table, but for purposes of
illustration, Photo 1 shows the contents of
each hand.

Note that the first two hands mirror each

other, as do the second two hands. This
means that whatever hand is chosen by the
participant, you’ll have immediate access to
the matching hand.
1
“Suppose we’re playing a game of cards. You
choose any hand at random, and I’ll try to match
exactly the hand you choose, card for card.”
Whatever hand the participant indicates, slide it toward her.

Ask her to look at her hand, but not to show it to you quite yet. Grasp one of the non-matching
hands from the table and turn it face up as you ask, “And can you just verify that if you had chosen
this hand, all the cards would be substantially different?” As an example, suppose the participant
chose the left-most packet, consisting of the Five of Hearts, Three of Hearts, Jack of Spades,
Ace of Hearts, and King of Spades. You would grasp one of the two packets toward your right
so that you can show a Two, Queen, Four, Ten, and Nine–not a single card matches at all.

Place this right-most packet on top of the deck, followed by the one next to it. You can shuffle
this packet casually and flash the face of it as well, if you like. These cards won’t match the
participant’s pile, either. Crucially, the last packet you collect and place on top of the deck will
match, card for card, the participant’s hand.

Instruct the participant to hold the cards in her hand face down and then to deal the first one
face up on the table. Continuing with our example, this will be the Five of Hearts. As soon as

87. If the second-deal isn’t part of your repertoire, read the comments section at the end for a simple work-around
solution.

230
she deals it down execute a series of false cuts and then apparently cut to the Five of Diamonds.
Any false cut works well, followed by turning over the top card of the deck. Place the Five of
Diamonds with the Five of Hearts and slide them to the side.

“Now I’d like you to deal the next two cards. I’ll try to find two at the same time.” She will deal the
Jack of Spades and Three of Hearts side by side. Once she does, execute the Fractal False
Cut Production (p. 75) to produce the first and second card from the top of your deck. This
production is haphazard and pretty. Deal these pairs of cards off to the side with the red Fives.

“You have two cards left,” you say, and as you talk, cut the top card to the face using the Simulated
Double Undercut (p. 139). “You decide which one you want me to find next. Deal either card face up.”

Now, depending on which card she deals down, you’ll produce the face card or the top card. If
she deals the Ace of Hearts, you can produce the Ace of Diamonds from the face of the deck
using my Dribblocation (p. 142). If she deals the King of Spades, you can produce the top card
of the deck, the King of Clubs, using the Benzais Spin-Out sleight. Needless to say, you can
produce these cards in any manner you like. The important point here, for our purposes, is that
you’re finding the cards in the order they decide.

For the last card, use whatever revelation you didn’t use previously: either the Dribblocation or
the Benzais Spin-Out. You have just produced exactly the hand of cards they chose.

COMMENTS
• Here’s a lovely feature of this trick: it disorders precisely the top twenty cards of the
stack. “Sequenced” (p. 109) allows for the top twenty cards of the stack to be shuffled as it
only requires cards 21-52 to be in order. This means that this trick is the perfect lead-in to
“Sequenced,” which is one of the strongest effects possible with this stack.

What I’m suggesting is that if you have the opportunity to perform a longer set than the
one outlined in Chapter Two and you have access to a table, this is a great piece to add in
just before “Sequenced.”

• If you wish to eliminate the second deal in this routine, you need only transpose cards 18
and 19 (the Nine of Spades and the Five of Diamonds) before you begin. This is easily
managed as you toy with the cards before you start dealing.

231
 Quicker Dead
In Darwin Ortiz’s seminal “Harry in Your Pocket,”88 the
performer finds the mate of a selected card while the cards are
isolated in the pocket. Variations abound, but it’s built right into
the Particle Stack. Here’s how I treat it.

You ask the participant to cut the deck anywhere she likes and remove the top card, look at it,
and place it in her pocket. As you pick up the deck, you can see (by markings or glimpsing the
face card), not only what card she places in her pocket, but also whether the mate to this card
is second from the top or second from the face (it will always be one of the two). In either case,
you can clearly show that the top and bottom cards of the deck do not match her selection;
you’ll want to pose this as a question since you’re not yet supposed to know the identity. If the
mate is second from the top, replace the top card on the face of the deck after showing it. If the
mate is second from the face, replace the face card on top of the deck after showing it. In any
case, after this simple, fair display, the mate you need is on either top or bottom. Place the cards
in the card box so that the mate is nearest to the thumb-notch (Photo 1 shows the cards as they
go into the box, with the Three of Clubs as the mate). Tuck the box’s flap above the mate (Photo
2). Now place the box inside your pocket.

1 2

88. See Ortiz, Darwin, “Harry in Your Pocket,” Cardshark, 1995, p. 113, and later, Ortiz, Darwin, “The Quick and
the Dead,” Scams and Fantasies with Cards, 2002, p. 120.

232
Explain that, like a Wild West duel, you’ll count to three. On the count of three, the participant
is to shout the name of her card, and then to reach into her pocket and pull it out. You offer to
beat her at the task, but in the same stretch of time, you’ll reach into your pocket, into the card
box, and into the deck, and pull out the mate of her card.

When you count to three, go right into your pocket and place your third finger on the thumb
notch. Press firmly and pull up and the mate will come right out. With practice (and, honestly,
starting a touch before your count of three), you’ll be able to extract the mate of her card before
she can even pull her card from her pocket.

Kudos to Darwin Ortiz for developing a terrific plot and presentation. I was tickled to find such
a strong effect is essentially built into the Particle System.

233
 Moe’s Memorized
Move-a-Card
The properties of the Particle Stack are conducive for Moe’s
Move-a-Card.89 For those unfamiliar with this plot, the effect is
that you exchange a thought-of card with any other card in the
deck, and the performer can quickly study the cards and observe which ones
have changed positions.

A more commercial approach is to do away with the “switching” in favor of just removing. You
have someone remove a card from the Particle System without looking at it, placing it in their
pocket. You spread the pack face up on the table and scan the cards in comically quick fashion.
Since the colors alternate throughout the pack, you simply scan until you find the one place
with two consecutive cards of the same color. That will instantly indicate which card is missing.

With some practice you can do this with uncanny speed. Here are some further tips. Don’t
burden yourself with calculating the removed card while spreading. Instead, focus only on
finding two cards of the same color together,
and repeating them: red Nines, red Nines, red
Nines. Then, as you close the spread, you can
do the quick calculation to determine what falls
between them.

You can also minimize the time the cards are

face up by collecting the spread as you spread
the cards. To do this, situate your left hand
under the deck to the left of your working
surface (Photo 1). Hold the pack face up from
above with your right hand and spread the first
1 few cards face up from left to right. When your
hands are about ten inches apart, start moving

89. See Seidenstein, Moe, “Moe’s Move-a-Card,” Marketed Effect, The Linking Ring, July 1937 (advertisement
only).

234
 2 3

both hands in unison, spreading more cards with your right hand as you collect cards with your
left hand (Photos 2 & 3). As you move across the table, the animation of the moving spread is
visually interesting, but it also gives the illusion that the cards are never face up for more than
a couple seconds. Actually, this action makes it easier to spot your target cards.

I use this, and I’ve observed that it plays stronger to have the participant keep the card unknown
until after you call out its identity. Then the climax of the effect is visual, rather than auditory.

235
Part VI:
The Gambling Show

This last chapter is an act of gambling-oriented material made possible by

the Particle System. Along the way you’ll learn two major features built into
the stack, including my favorite way to get from the Particle System into
new deck order. I perform these tricks together, as a set, and I use the act
whenever I encounter a group of people who have an interest in gambling.
Aces and Kings
Production
This act starts with a flashy production of the Aces and then, at
the end, a surprise appearance of the four Kings. Any revelations
that produce the cards on top and bottom of the pack would work,
but this is the sequence I use.

EFFECT
In an attempt to find great cards for blackjack, the performer finds the four Aces. To complete
the blackjack hands, the performer produces four full blackjacks.

PERFORMANCE
“Although I’m a magician, my main fascination is with sleight of hand, and the finest sleight-of-hand
artists aren’t always magicians. Many of the world’s top manipulators are really card cheats. Think of
it like this: a card cheat’s technique has to be so flawless that nobody even suspects, let alone detects, that he
or she has skill.” As you speak, you seat yourself at the table, remove the deck from the box, and
begin a series of false table shuffles and cuts.

“I’d like to show you the ultimate card cheating demonstration, but before I can do that, let’s warm up.
Let’s talk blackjack. The most desirable cards in blackjack are, of course, the Aces, because they can be used
high or low. Let me try to find the four Aces.”

1 2

239
 To find the first Ace, you’ll use a previously unpublished color change I developed called The
Face Change. It occurs at chest height and is easy to perform, as follows.

The Face Change

Hold the deck in the right hand near the inner end of the pack, between the right thumb and
first and second fingers (Photo 1, previous page). Hold the left hand palm up and rub the face of
the deck on the left fingers, conditioning the audience to this rubbing action (Photo 2, previous
page).

As you raise your hands and the cards to chest height, align the deck across the left palm for
a moment and push the face card across the left palm and fingers (Photo 3). This occurs in a
smearing action; the left fingers do not move or bend to accommodate the face card. Instead, the
friction created by rubbing the face of the Ace of Clubs against the left fingers causes this card
to break from the pack and stay in palm position (Photo 4). It helps that in the Particle System,
the Ace of Clubs is trimmed slightly shorter than the other cards.

The Ace is pinned in position by the lower left corner of the pack, which is held horizontally
at chest height (Photo 5 shows an exposed view, Photo 6 shows the audience’s view). You can
move the deck in small concentric circles in this position and the concealed Ace will remain out
of sight, securely pinned into place. The left hand remains rigid.

3 4

5 6

240
 7 8

When you’re ready to make the change, move

the deck above the left hand for half its length
(Photo 7). As you move downward and pass
over the Ace in palm position, collect it back
on the face of the deck and move everything
into view (Photos 8 & 9). The card melts into
view as it passes behind the left hand.

Turn the pack inward toward yourself and

remove the Ace from the face with the left
hand and table it face up to your left. 9

You’ll find the second Ace, the Ace of Hearts,

with a false table cut, then turning over the top
card and placing it to the right of the Ace of Clubs.

For the third Ace, perform a fancy in-the-hands false cut and then do a second deal to produce
the Ace of Diamonds. I use Troy Hooser’s Pendulum Cut,90 and as I perform it, I say, “It’s more
challenging to be a cheater because you can’t use any card handling that looks fancy. If I cut the cards like
this you might be impressed by the skill required, but it’s a skill you can see. This would never work in a
card game.” Place the Ace of Diamonds in the row to the right of the Ace of Hearts.

Dribblocation with Cover Card

For the last Ace, the Spade, I use my own Dribblocation,91 which is already explained on p. 142.
However, in this case we’ll adapt the handling to produce the card second from the face. To do
this, you must sidejog the King on the face of the packet for about an inch by pressing the card
to the right with the left finger pads. The sidejogged King is held in this position from above
by the right hand, and you can proceed with Dribblocation as already described (Photos 10-12).

90. See Jay, Joshua, Pendulum Cut, Destroyers, 2001, p. 123.

91. See Jay, Joshua, Dribblocation, Magic Atlas, 1999, p. 53.

241
 10 11

12 13

The face card won’t interfere with the mechanics of the location. Table the Spade to the right
of everything. The order of the Aces, from left to right, is Clubs, Hearts, Diamonds, Spades.

For the surprise ending, say, “But finding four Aces is a great poker hand. We’re playing blackjack.
And this is blackjack. And so is this. And this! And this!” You’ll produce all four Kings using the
Two Card Catch,92 tossing the pack from the left hand into the right hand, retaining the top
and bottom Kings (Spades and Diamonds), and then tossing the cards from the right hand to
the table, also retaining the top and bottom cards (Clubs and Hearts).

If you turn the cards over in your hands in sequence, you can table the King of Diamonds
on the Ace of Clubs, the King of Spades on the Ace of Hearts, the King of Clubs on the Ace
of Diamonds, and the King of Hearts on the Ace of Spades (Photo 13). This is an applause
position.

92. This sequence is often attributed to Johann Nepomuk Hofzinser, but it appears it was created by Christian
Emanuel Apollinaire Comte. See Racherbaumer, Jon, “Olram Catches a Card,” Cardfixes, 1990, p. 14.

242
 RESET
Table the deck face up and then move your hands to the outer two blackjack hands. Use the
Kings to scoop the Aces beneath them, and then place the left hand’s Ace of Clubs packet on
top of the Ace of Spades packet in the right hand. Drop all four cards back on the face. These
cards are now in order. Turn the deck face down. Pick up the King of Clubs/Ace of Diamonds
together and place them on top of the deck, and then pick up the Ace of Hearts/King of
Spades and place them on top of everything. Perform a false cut and all is back in order.

COMMENTS
This is similar in theme to “Matching the Cards” (p. 135), but here we favor flashier productions
and a gambling theme.

The Face Change has applications beyond this routine. It’s useful to have a color change in your
repertoire that can be done at chest height, since most color changes occur with the cards held
at waist height, on a horizontal plane. The Face Change plays well for more formal gatherings.

243
 Riffing
I always follow “Aces and Kings Production” by locating a
thought-of card, but I frame it differently than explained on p. 95.
The technique is the same, but I position it from the perspective
of a cheater.

“Let’s pretend I’m in a game of cards. It doesn’t matter what game or whether or not you gamble. It’s
always the same. You need ONE card. One card somewhere in the deck will complete your poker hand, or
give you blackjack, or win trumps. So, I ask…you…what’s our target card?”

By framing it this way, we can still locate cards using the markings and the breathers as already
described, but now we find the card in the context of winning in a game.

For all the reasons already stated, I find just one thought-of card, and build it up as much as I
can.

244
Ten Card Poker Deal
The classic Ten Card Poker Deal is built into the Particle Stack
at cards 20-30.93 For those unfamiliar with this plot, The Ten
Card Poker Deal is a hustle in which you and a participant use the
same ten cards to play multiple rounds of poker. Despite apparent
fairness in letting the participant control which cards she wants
and which cards she wants you to take, you, the performer, always win.

The ten cards used are usually comprised of three trios of cards and one
“Jonah” card that is different from the others. Here, we use three Sixes, three
Sevens, and three Eights. The Jonah card is the Nine of Clubs. What’s most
valuable to know is that the Jonah card also happens to be a breather card in
the Particle System. Since many of the best routines require you to crimp or
mark the Jonah card, you’re ahead here, since this Jonah card is both crimped
and marked.

What follows is my preferred routine which includes a recent addition by

Matt Baker to return all ten cards into their initial order so you can continue
with other stack magic.

SETUP
Note that there are actually eleven cards in this bank: you will need to remove any Seven to
get down to just ten cards. This can be done openly as you remove the ten cards; just leave any
Seven behind. I always leave behind the Seven of Hearts, for the simple reason that I believe
the black Sevens are less memorable and thus less noticeable in the sequence. Cut the pack at
the Nine of Clubs breather and complete the cut. Then cut the Nine of Clubs from the face

93. The origin of this hustle is unknown, but an early reference is in Arthur Buckley’s Card Control, 1946, p. 103.
For an entire book dedicated to the subject, see Farmer, Bob, The Bammo Ten Card Deal Dossier, 2015. For my very
favorite routine in the genre, look no further than Ortiz, Darwin, “Mexican Poker,” Darwin Ortiz at the Card Table,
1989, p. 29.

245
 back to the top using the Simulated Double
Undercut (p. 137). I thumb over eleven cards
and give them a quick shuffle. Then I turn
them face up and say, “We’ll play an old game
called Ten Card Poker using just ten cards.” As
the cards are counted between the hands I
“notice” that there’s an extra card and simply
remove the Seven of Hearts and place it face
up on top of the face-down deck, crosswise
(Photo 1). The reason for this will become
clear during the cleanup after the effect. 1

PERFORMANCE
“If you’ve never played Ten Card Poker, the rules are exactly the same as other forms of poker, but we
play with the same ten cards to make it faster. Any poker players here?” The essential goal here is to
identify someone in your audience who is familiar with the ranks and hands of poker. “Jan? You
play some poker. Great. Then you know we always begin by shuffling the cards.”

Give Jan the ten cards and allow her to mix them. While she’s shuffling, I say, “I saw there are
some pairs mixed in the packet, which should make things fun.” Some performers openly talk about
removing “good” cards to build the best hands, but to me this calls too much attention to the
idea that you, the performer, control the cards that are used. I prefer to impart the idea that any
random ten cards were chosen, and that it “looks like” some pairs were mixed in.

Phase One
This phase and the one that follows it are played “hands down,” meaning that despite the
fairness of the procedure, the participant is essentially choosing her cards by chance. This
routine is designed to get increasingly fair, so we begin with two rounds without looking at
any faces.

When Jan has finished shuffling, retrieve the packet from her and cut the cards at the breather,
bringing the Nine of Clubs to the face. Now shuffle it back to the top using an overhand shuffle;
just run the cards between your hands taking care to throw the last card, the Jonah card, on top.
“Jan, you’re going to lose this game. And when I say lose, I don’t mean that you’ll lose more than you’ll
win. I mean I’m going to crush you, every time, no matter what you do.” This is, of course, delivered
entirely tongue-in-cheek. “And I want you to win.94 I’ll do everything I can to make sure you win.
But...you won’t.”

“You shuffled. I’ll deal.” Deal the top card, the Jonah card, to Jan. Deal the new top card to
yourself. Then alternate for another round of dealing, one more to her, and one more to you.

94. The “I want you to win” line is appropriated from Harry Lorayne, whose performance of this routine made
a huge impact on me as a kid. Harry’s routine is good, but it was Harry’s over-the-top, borderline obnoxious
enthusiasm that made his routine special. See Lorayne, Harry, “Ten Card Poker Deal,” Decksterity, 1967, p. 72.

246
Then stop. “Let’s stop for a minute. Because I want you to win. If you prefer, I can deal myself this
card and you can take the next one. Or you can take the next two for yourself and I’ll take the next two.
Do you realize how this changes the fate of your hand, since you’re changing which cards fall to you and
which ones fall to me?” In my experience, the success of all iterations of this routine pivots on
stressing these moments, “selling” what we know to be irrelevant decisions as if they are critical.
You must communicate that the participant is controlling the outcome. Complete the dealing
per Jan’s instructions.

“Alright, let’s play Ten Card Poker.” Encourage Jan to look at her hand and sort it. “Whatcha got?”
I ask as I sort my cards. “A pair of Eights? Not bad. Not good...but not bad.” I hesitate and then
reveal two pairs. “Two pairs beat a pair. But let’s play again. I want you to win!”

Phase Two
Allow Jan to shuffle again. “This time you’re going to shuffle and you’re going to deal.” Ask her to
cut the cards and casually note the face card of the deck. With a small packet the likelihood
of cutting to a breather increases both mathematically and topologically. It’s hard for people
unaccustomed to manipulating cards to cut such a small packet without digging their fingers
between cards; a breather is almost automatic. You’ll find that more times than not, the
participant will make this phase automatic by cutting the breather to the face. If she doesn’t, or
if you can’t get a glimpse of the face card, then take the cards back and cut them yourself with
the excuse, “You shuffled, so I cut. Casino rules…”

With the Jonah card on the face, ask Jan to deal the cards out entirely and as she deals, emphasize
the fairness. “I can’t think of how I could possibly be any fairer. You shuffled the cards. Then you cut
the cards. Then you dealt the cards. I know you think of me as a card manipulator and a magician, but
if I don’t touch the cards, I can’t be accused of cheating. In fact, I want you to win.” When the cards
are dealt, you say, “Let’s play poker. Whatcha got?”

“Three of a kind? Seriously. That is a good hand. Come to think of it, what even beats three of a kind?
A full house? That’s a full house.” Show your hand beats hers, and then collect all the cards. Ask
Jan to shuffle all the cards again for the next phase.

Phase Three
In this phase we increase the stakes by allowing the participant to design her own hand. This
phase is identical to Phase Three of Darwin Ortiz’s routine; it’s perfect, and it seems impossible
to control...yet you always win.

When Jan has finished shuffling, ask her to deal them face up in a row on the table. “This time
I’m certain you can win because I’ll let you choose all your own cards. This is what gamblers call Heads-
up Ten Card Poker, and I’ll go first so you understand.”

Actually, you’ll go first because you need to go first for this work. “I’ll choose any card to start
building my hand. Maybe...this one.” Choose any card other than the Jonah card and slide it toward
yourself.

247
 “Now you get to choose any card.” Allow her to slide any card toward herself. You’ll continue
in this alternating fashion, each player building a hand card by card. The only rule you must
follow is the obvious one: don’t choose the Jonah card. At some point, it’s possible the participant
will choose it. Once she does, you can ease up on the procedure, allowing her to choose both her
own cards and your cards. If she doesn’t choose the Jonah card, eventually she will be left with
it automatically. Since you chose first, she’ll end up going last, and it will be the only card left.
Either way, you win.

As you’re choosing cards, turn your cards face down so that the players can’t precisely follow
your hand as you build it; this adds to the suspense. You get to reveal your hand at the end to
eke out another victory. “But I wanted you to win!”

Phase Four
In this phase, we add more drama by incorporating a camera phone and a prediction element.
More importantly, we restore the order of this ten-card packet.

“We’ll play one last time, but this time I’ll be even fairer. Before, I let you shuffle, cut, and deal, and I
let you choose the cards you wanted. This time I’ll change the rules to make it easier to win. You win no
matter what hand you have, unless I can perfectly predict every card you receive.”

As you talk, you must openly sort the ten cards back into Particle Stack order. You can do this

2 3

4 5

248
openly, but keep the cards tilted away from the spectators so that they don’t see exactly how the
cards are sorted (Photo 2).

Now separate the sequence equally in half, creating two poker hands, one in each hand (Photo
3). The upper hand, which begins with the Jonah Nine of Clubs and contains a pair of Eights
and a pair of Sixes, is the participant’s hand. Your hand contains three Sevens, the Eight of
Hearts and the Six of Spades.

“I’ll take a picture of the hand I think you’ll be dealt,” you say. Table your hand and retrieve your
camera phone, and snap a clear, close-up picture of the participant’s losing hand (Photo 4). “And
this is my prediction of my hand” (Photo 5). Snap a second photo, this one of your hand. Table
your phone face down and you’re ready to proceed.

Regrip the two poker hands, taking your winning hand face down in your right hand and
holding the participant’s losing hand in your left hand. Fan the cards of each hand face down,
positioning your thumb on top and fingers beneath (Photo 6).

Now weave the two hands together in a manner that looks random but is actually a precise,
alternating weave. Slide the lowermost card in the right hand, the Six of Spades, into a position
second from the bottom of the cards in the left hand, between the Eight of Clubs and the Six
of Diamonds. Proceed in a perfect alternation from this point (Photo 7). From top to bottom,
the order of the cards following this weave is: 7S, 9C, 7D, 6H, 7C, 8S, 8H, 6D, 6S, 8C.

6 7

“This time I’ll shuffle the cards because you will determine the fate of every single card dealt.” Here you
execute any false shuffle or cut you’re comfortable using with a small packet. Even the Chili
Shuffle (p. 55) works here, so long as you cut the breather-marked Nine of Clubs second from
the top afterward.

You will now perform Paul Curry’s “A Swindle of Sorts” sequence95 apparently to allow the
participant to control the order of the packet. In fact, this swindle changes nothing about the
order of the cards.

95. See Curry, Paul, “A Swindle of Sorts,” Paul Curry Presents, 1974, p. 7.
249
 Hold the packet in left-hand dealer’s grip.
Thumb over the top card of the face-
down packet into your right hand and then
thumb over the second card, the Jonah
card, sidejogged from the rest of the packet
(Photo 8). You are clearly displaying two
face-down cards.

“I’m going to deal the cards in a moment in the

standard fashion, but you get to decide the fate
of each card. We can either ‘drop’ or ‘swap’
8
each time. So you just call out ‘drop’ if you want
me to drop it onto the table like this, or ‘swap’ if
you’d like me to swap the top two cards before I
drop them.”

If the participant commands you to drop, just deal the card in your right hand face down onto
the table. If she commands you to “swap,” openly slip the card in the right hand under the Jonah
card sidejogged on top of the left-hand packet, and then deal both cards, together, onto the
table face down (Photos 9 & 10). This “drop or swap” terminology was coined by Matt Baker.

Matt also has a lovely little subtlety apparently to prove the distinction between “drop and
swap,” which is different from the proving phase Paul Curry developed for “A Swindle of Sorts.”
Matt’s very simple solution is to show the viewers the top three in order: 7S, 9C, 7D. Call them
out in this order and, as an example, let them see you do a couple example deals. “If you say
‘drop’ I’ll deal the top card down like this. If you say ‘swap’ I’ll swap the two cards and then drop them,
like this.” Once you carry out these actions, pick up the three tabled cards and turn them face
up and sidejogged on top of the packet for a moment. Say, “As you can see, what you say determines
the order.” Deal the top card, the Seven of Spades, onto the table, leaving it face up. “You see, the
order changes depending on if we swap these two cards or not,” you continue, slowly putting the
Nine of Clubs above and below the face-up Seven of Diamonds to demonstrate that, depending
on whether these two cards are swapped or not, the order of the three cards would change.
Eventually place the Nine under the Seven of Diamonds and drop both face up on top of the

9 10

250
Seven of Spades. Then collect all three cards
and replace them face down on top of the
packet. The net result is that the order of the
cards has not changed. But you have effectively
demonstrated how “dropping and swapping”
would change the order. But of course, this
isn’t true. This is only true when the cards are
handled face up. When they are handled face
down, the order remains the same regardless
of dropping or swapping.

11
Continue with this “drop or swap” procedure
for the remaining cards, allowing the
participant to choose whether to switch or deal
the cards each time. The outcome, of course, is
the same in any case. If she calls “drop,” deal
the card in your right hand to the table. If she
calls “swap,” slip this card under the top card in
the left hand and deal the pair together to the
table. The end result, no matter what she calls
out, is that the order of the packet is reversed.

“And now, for the last time, let’s play Ten Card
Poker.” Pick up the cards and deal them out 12
honestly, the first card to your opponent and
the next to yourself, and then continuing
in this fashion. As you deal, emphasize the
fairness of this procedure. “Remember, I’m
dealing you that exact card because of the decision
you made to drop or swap. If at any point you had
made a different decision, you would be receiving
this card and I would be receiving that card. And
most importantly, remember that we aren’t just
playing poker this time. You win if I don’t exactly
predict the specific cards in each of our hands. So...
whatcha got?”
13
Instruct the participant to turn over her hand
but take care that she doesn’t sort it this time.
Instead, just ask her to turn it face up on the table (Photo 11). Two pairs. Now turn up your
hand: three of a kind (Photo 12). “I win the hand. But I also win the game, because this is what I
thought I would be dealt...and this is the hand I thought you would be dealt.” Retrieve your phone and
display the pictures of each hand to show your perfect prediction (Photo 13).

251
 RESET
The hands are already back in order, so all
that remains is to place the Seven of Hearts
between them on top of the deck. To do this,
pick up the face-up Seven of Hearts that
is resting on top of the deck and add it to
the rear of your face-up poker hand (Photo
14). Now flip all six cards face down and
drop them on top of the deck. Retrieve the
participant’s five cards and drop them on top
of everything. You’re now back in Particle 14
Stack.

COMMENTS
• One of the most useful features of the Aronson Stack was that the Ten Card Poker Deal
was built into the arrangement, and I made it a priority to carry that over to this stack. The
biggest obstacle in using any Ten Card Poker Deal routine from a stack is getting all ten
cards back in order. I couldn’t solve this issue to my satisfaction, and so whenever I used
this feature, I scrambled afterward to return the cards to their initial order. Matt Baker has
solved this problem for us, and so I thank him for devising the idea behind Phase Four.

• I don’t always perform this hustle during my gambling set. I find that the Ten Card Poker
Deal requires near-perfect visibility of the table and an audience who is familiar with the
rules of poker. If the conditions aren’t right, this routine drags. But if you find yourself in
a situation that meets both of these requirements, there’s almost nothing that can top this
sequence. The one thing that can…is on the next page.

252
The Particle
Gambling Demo
You found four perfect blackjack hands. You instantly produced
any card called for. You won at poker over and over again. Now it’s
time to show them the ultimate demonstration in card control.

EFFECT
You stack the shuffled deck to deal yourself a perfect royal flush. Then you deal yourself a
“perfect” bridge hand of every Spade…in order. To end, you show that you’ve put the entire
pack back into order, separated by suit.

PERFORMANCE
If you cut the Queen of Diamonds (47) to the top of the deck, the rest takes care of itself.
Seriously. That’s it. You just deal four hands of five cards, and you’ll receive a royal flush in
order. If you continue to deal, you’ll end up with all the Spades in order. And your opponents
will have the other suits. There’s some finesse, of course, but this is all built into the Particle
Stack.

You begin by giving the pack a thorough false shuffle and some complete cuts. Using the
markings as a guide, cut the Queen of Diamonds to the top of the pack. “I’ve shown you how to
cut to the four Aces, how to win at blackjack, and how to find any card called for. But now for the ultimate
demonstration: I’m going to take this shuffled deck
and try to deal myself a winning hand of poker.”

Deal the first two rounds of a four-handed

game of poker in the usual manner. Deal the
first three hands in an arc in front of you, from
left to right, and your own cards right in front
of yourself (Photo 1).

Note that in the photo, on the third hand, the

uppermost card of the pair, the Ace of Hearts,
is dealt outjogged. This is a small, aesthetic
1
detail, and while it isn’t essential, it will make

253
 2 3

things a little prettier later on. When you deal the next three rounds, deal all of them outjogged
on each of the outer three packets. When you come to the third packet, you just deal subsequent
cards aligned with the Ace of Hearts (Photos 2 & 3).

When you’ve completed five rounds, stop and table the deck. Maybe you will play this up as
riffle-stacking, or perhaps a demonstration of false deals. Or maybe you’ll leave it a little more
vague, as I tend to do. “Despite all the cutting and all the shuffling, I’ve dealt myself the winning hand.
In fact, I don’t even have to look at the other hands because I’ve dealt myself the best poker hand: a royal
flush in Spades.” Turn over the cards in your hand to reveal, in order, the royal flush.

Phase Two
To deal yourself a perfect bridge hand, all you need to do…is keep dealing. Leave everything
where it is, and continue dealing. That is, turn the royal flush face down and replace it in front
of you. Pick up the undealt remainder of the pack (which you tabled to show your winning
royal flush hand) and deal out all the cards in the same fashion, taking care if possible to
maintain the jogs on the outer three piles (Photo 4). Before you begin, shuffle the balance of
the deck thoroughly several times. You may even wish to give a shuffling demonstration, as
explained in “Present Your False Shuffles” on p. 60.

As you deal, you talk. “But that’s not the ultimate cheating demonstration. That’s poker. Suppose
instead we were playing bridge. For those who don’t know bridge, there are four players, so we’ll keep

4 5

254
dealing for four players. Every card in the deck is used, so I’m going to deal thirteen cards for each player,
like this.”

Build the drama and then reveal that you’ve dealt yourself a perfect bridge hand, in order, in
Spades. Openly move the Ace of Spades to the top of the hand and display it (Photo 5). “There
are more than 635 trillion bridge hands possible. But one beats them all and it’s called a grand slam. It
looks…like this.” Respread the Spades on the table near the outer edge, from right to left.

Final Phase
If you check, the outer three hands are also divided into suits and they run in numerical order,
but each outer packet requires a cut where the cards are jogged. Pick up the packets from left to
right, cutting each one at the jogged point before assembling them, Clubs on top of Diamonds,
and Hearts on top of everything.

Exactly how you reveal the remaining three suits is up to you. You can produce one of the suits
in order, card by card, as already explained on p. 161. This certainly fits with the skill-based
approach used throughout this act. I’ll do this sometimes. Other times I give the deck one last
false shuffle, as if performing one last secret manipulation, and then simply spread out the
cards to reveal they’re in order.

How you spread the cards matters. Since the red suits run from King to Ace and the black suits
run from Ace to King, you’ll need to alternate spreading from left to right and right to left. To
do this, turn the pack face up and situate it to your outer left, just inside the spread of Spades.
Now spread from left to right to reveal all the Hearts are in order (Photo 6).

Pick up the cards and move them inward, and then spread from right to left to reveal all the Clubs
(Photo 7). Finally, spread from left to right to reveal all the Diamonds (Photo 8, next page). As you
do this, you deliver your final remarks: “But I didn’t just find a grand slam perfect bridge hand for myself.
I found and sorted every card in the deck…that’s ALL the Hearts, ALL the Clubs, ALL the Diamonds.”

I use the same choreography to end this act as I do for the act described in Chapter III. I stand
as I reveal each of the four suits, and then move to the side of the table and say, “Thanks so much
for watching. Good night.”

6 7

255
 COMMENTS
• The Aronson Stack has a terrific poker
hand built into it, but dealing the cards
destroyed the stack.96 I wondered what
would happen if a poker deal could be
used to reorder the deck into new deck
order, and this is the result. “The Particle
Gambling Demo” is the third pathway to
new deck order that we’ve explored, and
in several ways it’s the most impressive. 8

• I’ve always loved Jim Swain’s “Poker

Interchange”; I think it’s one of the finest
gambling card routines ever devised. Happily, you can opt to use it in this demonstration
without any extra work or fuss. Essentially, you proceed as explained above in the first
phase, dealing out four hands of poker. But before you deal yourself a card each time, you
do a double lift when it’s your turn. On the first round this will show the King of Diamonds
by flipping two as one on top of the deck. Turn the double back down on top of the deck
and deal the top card, the Ace of Spades, face down in front of you. For each successive
round, execute a double lift just before you deal yourself each card. You’ll show the Ace,
Two, Three, and Four of Diamonds in turn: You’ve dealt yourself a Diamond Flush and
very nearly a Straight. The surprise is that when you turn over your cards, the hand has
changed in color and value…as you have changed your hand into a royal flush. This can be a
lot to present, but for an astute group, it packs an extra punch before the royal flush ending,
and it’s already there, built in and ready to use.

96. Simon later discovered (with the help of Bill Malone) an excellent work-around that put the cards back into
order as you revealed them. It isn’t ideal because of the way the hands are displayed, but it’s a serviceable solution.
See Aronson, Simon, “Routine Maintenance,” Try the Impossible, 2001, p. 238.

256
Epilogue Photo by David Szymanski

Before we part ways, I’d like to share one final routine and then an essay.
“Three Act Structure” is often my closing piece, and it feels right to save it
for the end.

The last essay is called “Restraint,” and it addresses the issue at the core of
designing any routine. I don’t have a definitive stance on this issue, but I hope
my meditations are helpful as you assemble your own memorized deck set.
Three Act
Structure
EFFECT
Someone names a card and, without looking, you cut to it.

Effects don’t come any simpler than this. Yet I find this effect is the one I use most often when
I wish to “riff ” with a named card. I describe this effect in two phases: first I cut to any named
card, and then—only if I feel like extending the routine—I will sometimes add the second
phase in which this card is revealed at a number named by the participant. But understand that
I often stop after the first phase.

PERFORMANCE
The concept is entirely simple: you’ll cut to the nearest breather crimp and adjust depending
on what card is named. The method is easy enough to pick up within minutes. The particular
presentation I use took longer to develop. I deliver it passionately, with supreme conviction,
because without this buildup, the trick is over too fast.

Begin by placing the cards on the table.

“Star Wars. Hamlet. Harry Potter. Do I have your attention yet?” You continue. “Pulp Fiction.
Raiders of the Lost Ark. Every one of these stories follows what Aristotle called the Three Act
Structure. No matter if it’s in outer space or medieval times, the story adheres to the same basic structure.
And I’ve applied that same ancient structure to this trick. So, now: A card trick in three acts.”

In my best narrator’s voice, I say, “Prologue: The fate of the future often hangs in the balance of the
cut of the cards. Winston Churchill. Would you cut the cards? And cut them again. And again.” Here
I invite the participant to cut the cards as many times as she likes, but I use this opportunity
to make sure she is cutting them by the ends and not the sides. It won’t matter here, but in the
second place it will give you the best shot at a great outcome. As she cuts, you can watch to see
if she hits the Super Crimp, bringing the Ace of Hearts back to the top. She usually will, and
you can stop at this point. If she doesn’t, you must simply cut the cards to bring the Ace of
Hearts back to the top, putting the deck back in stack origin.

259
 1 2

“Act One. In which we learn something intimate about the main character of the story. What’s your
birthday?” Note their answer, and in particular, remember the value of the day of their birthday.
If she says March 18th, you’ll remember 18.

“At the end of Act One the main character makes a difficult choice that will reveal to us the plot of the
story. I’d like you to think of any card, and when you’ve made your decision, say—out loud—the card
you thought of.”

Suppose the Seven of Clubs (28) is named. Your first step is to determine which crimp this card
is nearest to. In this case, the 28th position is quite close to the crimp at 30. So this crimp, the
Six of Spades, will be your target.

“In Act Two the hero emerges.” I stare down at the deck and breathe in deeply. Then I look up at
the participant and shoot her an exaggerated “model” pose.97 “Hi.” This moment breaks the
tension and gets a laugh.

“The hero resolves the conflict in a way that is shocking and totally unexpected. I’ll turn away like this
and cut the cards just one time.”

I now turn my chair away from the deck and position my body so it faces away from the
audience. I reach around with my right hand and feel around on the surface of the table until I
make contact with the pack (Photo 1). Square the pack neatly at this point; you want to be sure
you hit the crimp you’re aiming for.

Pause for a moment, and then place your fingers on the pack and lift up gently at the back at
the Six of Spades. You’ll know you hit it because it’s just over half the pack, and the cards will
break naturally at this point. Rather than lift the packet at this point, you will riffle two cards
gently off your right thumb, counting backward in your head from 30: 30, 29…You stop at
whatever stack number was called for, positioning this card on the face of the packet in your
right hand: in this case 28 (Photos 2 & 3). Lift the packet up above the cards on the table and
pause again. Then turn the packet toward the audience and ask, “How did I do?” (Photo 4).

97. If you’ve seen the film Zoolander, I’m going for “Blue Steel” in this moment.

260
 3 4

That’s it. As simple as it sounds, this is one of the more dramatic moments in my memorized
deck sets. There will be an urge to repeat it, but resist that urge.

Let’s explore some scenarios for other cards that might be named.

You can riffle up the back of the pack to get to any card in the deck, using the breathers as
a guide. However, it’s less desirable to have to riffle past five or six or more cards to get to a
named card. There is more risk involved because you might accidentally riffle off too many or
too few, or simply lose count. So here’s an alternative when the named card is just a few cards
deeper than a breather card.

Suppose the named card is the Nine of Hearts (33). This is three cards deeper than the Six of
Spades breather card, and thus we can’t riffle up from this card. It would require riffling through
eight cards if we cut at the breather at 40, and that’s too many. So instead, we’ll position the
named card right next to a breather under cover of an example.

In this case, you explain, “In a moment I’m going to turn my head and cut the pack like this.” So
saying, cut at the Six of Spades breather with your right hand. “And my hope is that I’ll cut right
to your card. But it won’t be luck. Luck would be if I cut to here…or here…or here.” As you speak, use
your left hand to flip over the top card of the tabled portion, the Eight of Diamonds (31), and
deal it face up to the side (Photo 5). In a continuous action, deal through all the cards until you

5 6

261
 reach the named card, leaving this card face
down. In this case, you need to get to 33, so
you need only flip over the top two cards.
Leave them face up in a little pile next to the
deck (Photo 6, previous page), and then drop
the cards in the right hand back on top of
the face-down, tabled cards (Photo 7). The
Six of Spades breather is now positioned
right next to the named card.

Now turn your chair away and continue 7

with the routine. “I’m going to cut the cards
just one time, without looking.” Cut the cards
to show the named card, and take your applause.

Second Phase
After cutting and displaying the thought-of card, remove it from the pack and toss it face up
on the table. Then reassemble the pack and spread it from left to right in front of you, as if the
trick is over. Your body language should convey that the trick is over.

Casually look down at the spread and spot the marking of the card that matches the participant’s
birth date. In our example, she named 18, so we would look for the Nine of Spades (18). With
your left finger pads, casually tap the spread at this point and create a little separation to the
right of this card (Photo 8). Then tap other cards in the spread to camouflage this action. The
objective here is to make it easy to insert the selection into the eighteenth position without any
apparent concentration.

After a moment’s pause, pick up the selection and slide it into the desired position and then
immediately square the cards (Photo 9). Cut the cards in half, centralizing the Super Breather.

“Act Three. In which the plot comes full circle. The main character returns to where they started, but
changed. First, cut the cards, and complete.” One of two things will happen here. Ideally, the
participant will cut to the Super Breather and return the cards to stack origin. If they cut

8 9

262
 10 11

somewhere else, you just continue, “And cut again. And again. And again if you like.” Presuming
they still haven’t hit the Super Breather when they’re finished, you casually cut the Ace of
Hearts back to the top.

If the participant cuts to the Super Breather, you call attention to their cut right away, as if the
whole point was how they cut. “A moment ago you thought of a card and I cut to it. But now you
have cut the cards. You’ve indicated a particular place in the deck and by completing the cut—–please do
so—you are changing the position of every card in the deck.”

You continue. “I told you in the prologue that the fate of the future hangs in the cut of the cards. In
Act One you revealed an intimate detail about yourself: your birthday. The 18th. You just cut the cards
wherever you wanted, which means you determined the position of every card in this deck. Including the
18th card. Let’s count…”

Spread the deck face down on the table so that you can slide cards away from the ribbon spread
one by one, counting as you go. If you tuck each card under the previously counted card, you
maintain the order of the cards as you count (Photos 10 & 11). Allow the participant to reveal
that the 18th card is once again the card she thought of. “The End,” you say.

If the spectator failed to cut right to the Super Breather, don’t sweat it. Just casually ask them to
complete the cut and cut again. You then cut at the Super Breather, resetting the pack into stack
origin, sending the Super Breather to the bottom. “Now,” you explain, “I want you to attempt to
cut to your card. You can cut deep or shallow. As you like.” And here you execute a Cross Cut Force,
marking the apparent location of their cut by placing the lower half crosswise on top of the
upper half. Then you can proceed as above, showing that the participant hasn’t actually cut to
her card. She’s cut to the exact spot to position her card to fall on the day of her birthday.

COMMENTS
• You now have two tactics that you can use to cut to any card in the pack at any time. Either
will work all the time, but the first technique of riffling up works best with cards that fall just
above any of the breathers. These are cards with stack numbers that end in 6, 7, 8, and 9.

263
 The other tactic, of using an example to demonstrate what you’re about to do, works best
for cards that fall just beneath any of the breathers, with stack numbers ending in 2, 3, 4,
and 5.

Of course, some of the time you’re going to get a direct “hit” and someone will name either
a breather card or the cards that fall just below the breathers. In this case you’ll be able to
cut right to the named card without any adjustments at all.

• As mentioned, I don’t always opt to include the second phase of finding the participant’s
card at their birthday. But I have to know before I present the trick if I intend to do both
phases, because if I wish to cut to their card and not proceed, I won’t use this presentation
(or any presentation at all). For magicians, I just cut to their card. For laypeople, I do the
presentation as outlined.

• This trick is strong enough to close a set with, but I’ve come to the conclusion that it isn’t
quite long enough to close a whole set. For this reason, I will often use this near the end,
and then proceed with “Sequenced,” “A Curious Incident,” or “Fireworks Finale.”

When I’m feeling confident in the participant’s ability to hit the Super Breather, I will
sometimes replace the second phase of this routine with what we’ll describe last: “Your
Turn.”

264
Your Turn
For the right person, in the right situation, this is a genuinely
startling effect: a participant names a card and then she cuts to it.

This trick makes use of the super breather explained on p. 25, the strong top-cutting
crimp you placed in the Ace of Clubs. After performing “Three Act Structure,” cut
the Ace of Clubs to the top of the deck and dribble the cards gently onto the table.
The reason for dribbling the cards at this point is that the wave in the super breather may be
noticeable to spectators if they study the top of the deck. By dribbling the cards in a haphazard
way onto the table, this is entirely camouflaged.

Before we dive into the method (which is surprisingly easy), let me express an important point
on how to present this effect. I’ve observed when you do something powerful but quick you have
to leave a little more time for the spectators to process it. In the previous effect, someone names
a card, and after a brief preamble, you cut right to it. It’s amazing, but it’s also over in less than
a minute. And my initial inclination was to put my head down and launch into the next effect.
This is, I think, a mistake. I realized that I have to pause at this point, letting the spectators soak
in that moment. This is particularly important to whoever named the card.

This pause also allows for an intriguing, two-word presentation for the effect we’re about to
discuss. I’ll either look at the person who just named a card (if they responded well to the
previous effect) or to someone else and, after a pregnant pause, say, “Your turn.” This sounds so
unbelievable that it will often get a nervous laugh. But it’s also an incredibly bold promise.

Now I fill in the gaps with some instructive instructions. “You thought of a card and I cut to it, but
this time you’ll think of a card and you will cut to it. So think of any card and name it out loud. Then
I’ll show you how to cut the pack.”

Whatever card she names, you’ll respond exactly as explained in “Three Act Structure” in the
previous pages. That is, you’ll determine how far down the named card is from whatever crimp
lies above it. Suppose the participant named the Eight of Clubs (24). That’s four cards down
from the crimp at 20.

You will reposition the super crimp directly above the named card under cover of an example
gesture. This is what is also described in the previous trick, but let’s explore how it fits into
this context.

265
 1 2

“In a moment I’m going to ask you to cut the cards from above, like this,” you say, as you reach down
and grasp the ends of the deck and cut at the crimp in the 20th position, the Nine of Clubs.
“This is the card we’ll aim for,” you say, gesturing with your free hand to the top card of the
tabled pile (Photo 1).

“Not this one,” you say, rotating the right hand face up to expose the Nine of Clubs, pointing
to it (Photo 2). Now turn the packet in your right hand palm down again and do the Simulated
Double Undercut, explained on p. 137. This casually brings the super breather from the top of
the packet to the face, right below the Nine of Clubs.

In a continuation of your example you continue illustrating the cards you aren’t talking about
when you talk about cutting to a card. “And not this card or this one or this one…that’s cheating. I’m
talking about cutting to one card and turning it over.” As an example, you will now flip face up the
number of cards you need to leave the named card, the Eight of Clubs, face down on top of the
deck. In our case, you would flip over three cards in a quick gesture. What has taken us three
paragraphs to explain happens in, truly, about three seconds. You leave the three face-up cards
(which are cards 21, 22, and 23) on a face-up pile on the table. Drop the cards in your right
hand on top of the remaining face-down cards, which situates the super breather right above
the named card.

“Are you right or left-handed?” Whatever she says, ask her to extend her non-dominant hand. If
she replies that she is right-handed, ask her to extend her left hand. I don’t believe this requires
an explanation; it’s mysterious and sounds almost ritualistic. But it does serve a clandestine
purpose: people are less coordinated with their non-dominant hand, and they will access the
super breather much more easily and without hesitation when using their non-dominant hand.
In my observation, people are more apt to riffle or dig their fingers into a random location with
their dominant hand. This goes for all the effects that make use of a participant cutting to the
breathers.

“Hold out your left hand like this,” you say, holding out all four fingers opposite your thumb
(Photo 3). Now you tailor your instructions to where the super crimp is situated. In the current
example it’s a little less than halfway down, so that’s what I would say. “Reach down and lift off
a little less than half the deck.”

266
At this point, she will either cut to the super
breather or she won’t. If you’ve followed the
pertinent points correctly, it’s highly, highly
likely she will cut right to it. You’ll be able to
see this by the markings. You can pause at this
point, building up the effect, and then ask her
to turn it over. This moment hits hard, so don’t
talk over the climax. Let it breathe.

As a recap, let’s go over the salient points to

maximizing your success rate, and then we’ll
3
cover a few more examples and what to do in
the unlikely event that the participant doesn’t
cut to the super breather.

• You position the super breather directly above the named card.
• You indicate where, in the deck, the participant should cut. In other words, “Cut off a
small packet,” or “Cut near the bottom of the deck,” or “Cut a little more than halfway
down.”
• You ensure that the participant is cutting by the ends of the deck and not the sides.
• You ensure that the participant is placing all four fingers along the outer end of the
deck, and not just using two fingers.
• You ask the participant to use her non-dominant hand.

Let’s try another example, this one more cumbersome. Suppose the participant names the Three
of Hearts (9). That’s very near the top of the deck. In this case, there’s no crimp above it. So,
just cut four or five cards off the top of the deck and repeat the same examples as described,
gesturing to the top card of the tabled portion, and emphasizing that you don’t mean the face
card of the packet they cut. Then transfer the super breather to the face of this small packet,
and peel off the top cards of the deck until you reach the named card. In this example, you
would flip the top card of the tabled pile face up and show, say, the Two of Hearts. “Just one card,
not three or four, okay?” So saying, flip over the next card and the one after and the one after that,
until the top face-down card of the deck is the named Three of Hearts. Now replace the cards
in your right hand and you’re set.

Common sense applies here. So when the named card is near the extreme top or bottom, I
suggest cutting the pack in half to centralize the super breather so it’s more aesthetically
pleasing when they cut in the center of the deck.

And if the named card is very far below a particular breather, you can flip the cards onto the
table face up in small groups. For example, if someone names the Seven of Clubs (28) you will
cut at the Nine of Clubs breather (20). Then you must deal through eight cards face up into a
pile onto the table. This would look odd if you dealt them all one by one. Instead, flip over the
top one singly, and then a big handful of five or six at once, and then singly after that. Leave
that pile face up on the table until after the trick.

267
 What if the participant doesn’t cut to the super breather? I give them one shot at a redo, and
then I cut to it for them. You could, of course, “jazz” your way out of it, but I’ve come to believe
that this looks exactly what it is: that you’re scrambling. Part of the strength of such a bold,
powerful simple effect is that you deliver on your promise. The moment you launch into, “And
now name any small number, and do me a favor, cut this packet with your other hand,” I think the
impact of what you’re doing is already diminished. Instead, I let them turn over the wrong
card. I act emotionless.

“Hard, isn’t it?” Now try this. Instruct them to replace the cards, and mimic my actions. I have
them rub their hands together as I do the same with mine. I ask them to breathe in deeply, hold
it for a moment, and then breathe out. Now I give myself a little cushion in case it doesn’t work
the second time. “The reason I ask you to cut to a card you thought of is to show you that it isn’t just
hard. It’s what I would consider on the border of impossible.” Now reach over and cut about half
the cards off.

Again, she will either cut at the super breather or she won’t. It’s highly likely that given a second
chance, she will hit the right spot. And now, with even more drama built up by a small failure,
she has cut to a card she named.

If she missed it again, it’s likely that the participant lacks the coordination to cut anywhere
close to where you’re directing, or they’re riffling up firmly on the cards with their thumb.
These are rare things that do happen, and in these cases, you just have to rescue it yourself.

“May I try?” I ask. I cut to the named card, and I move on.

When I encounter someone who is particularly uncoordinated with their hands or unused to a
pack of cards, here’s a tactic that will help them locate the super breather. Instead of having the
participant lift a packet of cards off the table, you can place all the cards in their hand and ask
them to drop a packet of cards to the table. If you position their hand just a few inches above
the tabletop, they can gently release a packet of cards, and I find this is even easier for some
people to follow.

COMMENTS
Don’t be dissuaded from trying this for fear that it sometimes won’t work. You will always find
the card. But very, very, very rarely, it won’t be as spectacular as we’d like. Odds are heavily,
heavily in your favor for being able to do something truly special.

One thing I haven’t yet mentioned: it isn’t just the super breather at the place they need to cut.
Right above it is the actual breather crimp you cut to when you set the super breather. This is
always the case when you perform this trick. This means that at the target location in the deck
are two cards that stand out, which makes it even more likely that the participant will hit the
right spot.

Let’s talk about cleanup, which is easy. Turn the participant’s named card back face down and
replace it on top of the face-down, tabled portion. Now pick up all the face-up cards in one pile
and flip them face down on top of the tabled packet. Retrieve the cards held by the participant

268
and do the same simulated double undercut action already described to cut the Ace of Clubs
back to the top of this packet, and then drop these cards on top of all the tabled cards. You’re
now back in stack, with the super breather on top rather than on bottom.

I devised this effect as a natural outgrowth of “Three Act Structure.” When I showcased the
feat of having someone name a card and then blindly cutting to it, it occurred to me that it left
only one effect in the minds of the viewers: how amazing it would be if they could do that. This
effect brings that desire to life.

The method owes a great deal to Juan Tamariz’s “Mnemonicosis,” though you’ll notice that
here, I’ve stripped away any deviation from one standard handling.98 It also owes a credit to
John Wilson’s “Parabola.” John’s effect is the same, though he uses a standard breather and a
culling procedure. In this case, I preferred a handling that felt as hands-off as possible, where
the deck doesn’t appear to be manipulated at all before or during the effect.

98. See Tamariz, Juan, “Mnemonicosis,” Mnemonica, 2004, p. 98.

269
 Restraint
Designing material for the Particle System has taught me a lot about restraint. At
any time in any trick, a thought-of card is within your grasp. And so are its mates.
And so is the other guy’s card. And so is a royal flush. The tool is so powerful that
we’re faced with a dilemma of what to reveal and what to conceal. It’s a unique
dilemma brought about by the Particle System. At your fingertips, you have a deck
that is marked, crimped, and in an order that can get you anywhere you need; Aces,
Kings, a royal flush, and new deck order are easily attained. How much do we show?
When do we exercise restraint and when do we set off fireworks? But how much
is too much?

Simon Aronson always argued to me that any semblance of new deck order at the
end of a memorized deck routine betrays the method of a stack. He’s right, I think
to myself. Then I see Juan Tamariz’s success going from stack to new deck order
and I think, No, HE’S right.

We card magicians aren’t the only ones fretting over this issue. Somewhere right
now, a group of mentalists is debating the Master Prediction: does ending your
show by predicting every choice add or subtract from the overall impact?

At its core, this is a choice of the head or the heart. Is it more important to you
to impress someone now or confound her later when she’s thinking back to your
show? Do you care more about fooling someone or amazing them? The answer, I
hope, is that you care about all of these things, and that choosing one or the other
would be difficult.

It certainly has been for me.

So, do we hold back or go all in? If you asked Simon Aronson, he would give you one
answer. If you ask Juan Tamariz, he’ll tell you another. As Arthur C. Clarke wrote,
“For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.” But the only people who
really know the right answer are the people watching your show. Their reactions—
and their feedback, if you’re bold enough to ask for it—will tell you how much is
too much on a case by case basis. I’ve not discovered any rule that lights the way in
all cases. It seems to me that it just depends.

270
As I developed the material in this collection, I’ve worked hard to exercise restraint. In “Matching
the Cards” (p. 135), we find four Kings and then change them into Aces. In that effect, I urge
you not to reproduce the Kings. My experience was that this veered too close to the method.

In “Back in Time” (p. 80), I advocate for you to use a selected card even though a named card is
possible. In “Riffing” (p. 90), I find that the singular experience of producing a thought-of card
is too strong to be repeated. This isn’t based on theory; it’s based on feedback.

Less is more.

In “The Curious Incident” (p. 259), I break the first unwritten rule of memorized deck magic: I
recite the order of the cards. In “Fireworks Finale” (p. 161) and “Particle Gambling Demo” (p.
253), I break another rule: I show the deck in order as the climax. With more restraint, these
effects wouldn’t pack any punch. I know because I’ve tried.

Less is less.

As with all things, make a decision and live with the results. But I urge you to make each
decision separately and not to establish rigid rules that will prevent you from being your best.
Test each decision whenever you can and as much as you can. Adapt.

But what if you still can’t figure it out? You still can’t decide. Less? More? The head? Or the
heart?

Go with the heart.

271
Photo by David Szymanski
Forgetting
the Point
There’s a strange irony to memorized deck magic; the focus is almost always on
remembering. Remembering cards. Remembering stack numbers. Remembering
tricks. But have we forgotten why we learned it in the first place?

Many magicians are in love with the weird and wonderful things they can do
with a memorized deck. But just because you can do it doesn’t mean you should.
A magician-friend pulled me aside recently, bursting with joy about a new trick
he had created. I don’t remember the specifics; all I remember is that there were
two decks in memorized order and the trick was awful.

“What do you think?” he asked.

“Well,” I said, and then I delicately told him my honest opinion.

“I know,” he said. “Not great. But it works right out of stack.”

That’s the problem: magicians invest time to memorize a deck and they want a
return on their investment. And I get it. Memorized deck magic is a particular
kind of rush, with more “eureka” moments for seasoned magicians than any other
area of magic I’m aware of. The nature of this sort of material often allows us to
fool ourselves as we follow along. How great is that? After years of immersion in
sleight-of-hand card work, it’s fun to discover that there’s a whole other “world”
in which to play. With memorized deck magic, more of the work is done in your
head, and math plays a bigger role than in other branches of card magic. It’s
invigorating to experiment and ask ourselves where and how a stack can be used
in new ways.

But these feelings—the novelty of stacks—can be distracting. Let’s not lose

sight of what matters most. The memorized deck is a tool to help us perform the
most devastating card magic possible. Miracles.

Ask yourself this question: are you doing miracles?

273
 Most of the memorized deck books on my shelf contain some very strong magic, but they also
contain experimental ideas and trifling effects. Our task is to separate the best from the spelling
tricks—I mean, the rest.

I developed the Particle System to strengthen the card tricks I was doing and to bring better
pieces into my repertoire. It was neither out of convenience nor a desire to convert every trick
to a memorized deck. I don’t claim that the tricks in The Particle System are all miracles, but I
constructed every single one with that goal in mind.

Author Neil Gaiman compared the act of writing a book with wrestling with a bear, and I can
certainly relate. The writing process for me often feels like a stressful struggle, but this book’s
path has been refreshingly free of wild bears. Perhaps it’s that most of it was written during a
global pandemic, when writing about magic was the only way to feel connected to it. Perhaps
it’s that I’m so fond of this topic. Perhaps writing helped fill the void left from my weekly
conversations on this topic with Simon Aronson. Whatever the case, my enthusiasm for this
work is overflowing. I hope the passion—the pure joy—comes through. That’s important to
me.

Thanks for reading,

Joshua Jay
New York City
April 30, 2020

274
“A philosopher should
remind himself, now and
then, that he is a particle
pontificating on infinity.”
—Ariel Durant

275
 A special thanks to Michal Kociolek for collaborating with me on the Particle System logo.
Michal found a way to balance a great deal of encoded information into one streamlined,
elegant design.

For those interested in such things, I wanted the logo to represent the three critical elements
in the Particle Stack: practical, artistic, and spectacle. These three words, you might recall from
the introduction, are encoded into the very words “Particle Stack,” by simply reusing and
reordering the same letters. The three atoms in the logo are more than they seem. What look
like spheres from a distance are actually three distinct shapes: a pumpkin, “P”, for practical, an
apple, “A”, for artistic, and a strawberry, “S”, for spectacle. Ahem: nerd alert.

I also wanted to pay homage to the three people who most influenced this system: Darwin
Ortiz, Simon Aronson, and Juan Tamariz. These three luminaries are present in the form of the
three colors of the atoms: olive for Ortiz, amber for Aronson, and teal for Tamariz.

Olive for Ortiz

•
Pumpkin for Practical

Amber for Aronson Teal for Tamariz

• •
Strawberry for Spectacle Apple for Artistic

276