Cut To Kill by Daryl Martinez

[Michael Kras]

Here's my performance of another great effect from Richard's Almanac. Comments and criticisms are helpful! Thank you, and enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNAeF36BfjA

Michael Kras

 

[SKSleighofHand]

Whoa! Totally did not expect the ending! I enjoy this video.

 

[William Draven]

Very nice and smooth Mike. May I offer this bit of ...thought processes? I can't call it advice since there's nothing really wrong with what you did.

At the end of your video, after the kings are revealed you go into a talk about being a magician, and using sleight of hand to cut the cards, and it's an illusion, etc etc.

My question to you is: Why? Isn't this explanation over kill?

Here's my train of thought. If you agree maybe you can use something from it, if not, no harm no foul. I'm just throwing this out there.

This kind of effect falls into the "poker demonstration" genre of magic. You're presenting the ability to shuffle track and follow certain key and important cards through the deck to be able to call upon them when you need. You prove this by cutting the four kings. You're not doing anything magical with the cards. Magic being defined as an experience that can not be explained by modern sciences. You are demonstrating something that is a skill set and something that probably took you years of lonely hours of practice to master.

Now, modern sleight of hand card magic is nothing more than old gamblers tricks presented for entertainment instead of swindle. Therefore sleight of hand isn't an illusion when being presented in this format.

You've already opened the audience up to consider your mastery over the cards. You've proven this by cutting the kings. Why not just go for the throat and say: "It's one thing to cut the kings in cards. That would be the hand I'd deal to you, of course, I'd save this for myself. The four aces."

Just tossing that out there. Again though, good video.

 

[Michael Kras]

Very nice and smooth Mike. May I offer this bit of ...thought processes? I can't call it advice since there's nothing really wrong with what you did.

At the end of your video, after the kings are revealed you go into a talk about being a magician, and using sleight of hand to cut the cards, and it's an illusion, etc etc.

My question to you is: Why? Isn't this explanation over kill?

Here's my train of thought. If you agree maybe you can use something from it, if not, no harm no foul. I'm just throwing this out there.

This kind of effect falls into the "poker demonstration" genre of magic. You're presenting the ability to shuffle track and follow certain key and important cards through the deck to be able to call upon them when you need. You prove this by cutting the four kings. You're not doing anything magical with the cards. Magic being defined as an experience that can not be explained by modern sciences. You are demonstrating something that is a skill set and something that probably took you years of lonely hours of practice to master.

Now, modern sleight of hand card magic is nothing more than old gamblers tricks presented for entertainment instead of swindle. Therefore sleight of hand isn't an illusion when being presented in this format.

You've already opened the audience up to consider your mastery over the cards. You've proven this by cutting the kings. Why not just go for the throat and say: "It's one thing to cut the kings in cards. That would be the hand I'd deal to you, of course, I'd save this for myself. The four aces."

Just tossing that out there. Again though, good video.

Mr. Draven, I appreciate these thoughts... you make an extremely valid point. The only reason I use such a presentation is that I really dislike effects involving directly cutting to two four-of-a-kinds... the second reveal is, I feel, surprising at first but when considered carefully, it's simply that the four kings and four aces were situated in pairs throughout the pack. I feel my presentation added mystery to the second phase, which is of course more important than the impact of the first phase. But, of course, my thinking is flawed, I'm only 16

 

[canadamagic]

Very nice and smooth Mike. May I offer this bit of ...thought processes? I can't call it advice since there's nothing really wrong with what you did.

At the end of your video, after the kings are revealed you go into a talk about being a magician, and using sleight of hand to cut the cards, and it's an illusion, etc etc.

My question to you is: Why? Isn't this explanation over kill?

Here's my train of thought. If you agree maybe you can use something from it, if not, no harm no foul. I'm just throwing this out there.

This kind of effect falls into the "poker demonstration" genre of magic. You're presenting the ability to shuffle track and follow certain key and important cards through the deck to be able to call upon them when you need. You prove this by cutting the four kings. You're not doing anything magical with the cards. Magic being defined as an experience that can not be explained by modern sciences. You are demonstrating something that is a skill set and something that probably took you years of lonely hours of practice to master.

Now, modern sleight of hand card magic is nothing more than old gamblers tricks presented for entertainment instead of swindle. Therefore sleight of hand isn't an illusion when being presented in this format.

You've already opened the audience up to consider your mastery over the cards. You've proven this by cutting the kings. Why not just go for the throat and say: "It's one thing to cut the kings in cards. That would be the hand I'd deal to you, of course, I'd save this for myself. The four aces."

Just tossing that out there. Again though, good video.

I agree, by explaining that you didn't use magic to find the kings it is almost like contradicting yourself as a magician. When you say that it didn't take magic to find these cards it is showing that anyone can do it, that it doesn't take much more than tricky handwork to accomplish this. You had a great performance I just think that the patter shold be rethinked.