One Ahead Principle?

[jimdavisrules]

I'm a little iffy on the one ahead principle, because you actually do need to know what the object or thought is. I mean, with cards and coins, it's perfect, because when you ask, what card is it, you have a reason for them to say it, or when you look at the dates on the coin, it's natural for you to confirm the date.
However, with predictions, it seems unnatural, because when you get all of the predictions right, they'll know that "there's no way he could have known what I was thinking of, unless...I told him." Then, they'll go back to when they told the magician, and wonder why they did tell him.
Any patter you guys use to make it seem less suspicious?

[ntroberts]

It's hard to help you on this because it depends on how you're doing the prediction. Care to elaborate further?

[jimdavisrules]

It's hard to help you on this because it depends on how you're doing the prediction. Care to elaborate further?

Like in Luke Jermay's "Emotional Intelligence." He started writing the emotion, (supposedly the memory the spectator had) and then asked, "So, what was this memory?" as if he had no idea what it was at all.
Or, the same patter could go for Jay Sankey's "Past, Present, Future" in his DVD "Anytime, Anywhere." He had them think of a past memory, a planned future event, and the date on a coin, supposedly the "present" memory.

[fkace63]

I have the same problem. The one ahead principle seems to be too obvious for
intelligent spectators, especially when doing predictions.

You just need to do what sankey does. Purposly don't get one 100 percent right. For example if the spec said sand dunes like in the video just write down dunes. Purposely act like you struggle with one prediction and when you write down the prediction be sorta wrong.

I think when you get people emotionally invested it tends to get their guard down.

[ntroberts]

Well, I'm not that familiar with E.I. or Past, Present, Future but yes I do see your concern about it.

Handling an Invisible deck runs a similar problem. If you really had a face down card in there from the start, you don't have to ask what it is the spec had in mind.

Common patter used to cover up this problem involves "concretizing into words" so that it's more... tangible or something and makes the "connection" clear.

An audience makes this a little easier, as you want the audience to know what it was so they can follow. Make it clear that it's for the audience's sake. Keeps them from fibbing on the selected card, but it does well for this problem too.

And like fkace mentioned, getting it slightly off-tangent wrong is a neat trick. If I'm not mistaken, Derren Brown writes about it in some of his books (Pure Effect, maybe?)

[Hoax]

Man, get Kostya Kimlat's lecture DVD! He showed us how to do that. He said you have to have a reason or you're screwed. He showed us several methods with cards and then with post it notes..


so you should check it out, dont think it's that expensive:)

[fkace63]

jimdavis rules, I wanted to add, really pay attention to the subtleties sankey uses. He doesn't explain their importance, but instead just uses certain subtleties in the presentation.

The first time you ask them for their thought, you ask them "So we're on the same page, let me know what you thought of for the past". Make a point to act very excited whenever they reveal the thought. You have to act like you got a prediction correct.

This makes it more difficult for the spectator to deconstruct the effect.

Also make sure the way you get ahead is deceptive. Sankey teaches switching a coin. I actually find it more impressive to find a forced card rather than the date on a coin.

Consider forcing a card with the criss cross force. Peak the top card,and emphasize you never even touched the deck.

Alternatively you might consider using multiple spectators. This might add more layers onto the presentation, although I haven't done this in the past.

I will say that this has fooled some intelligent people. Others though I still think will be able to figure it out. You can get the sense if the spectator is going to respond to the effect and more than often get fooled.

Not to brag, but I'm going to a banacheck lecture. I'll try to see if I can ask him about being one ahead using mentalism.