Strength of an effect

[darosa.justin]

Does one of the factors regarding the strength on an effect depend on how likely it is to fool a magician?
What I mean is, is a trick strong/stronger because it is able to fool a magician? Or does a tricks strength ONLY depend on how well it amazes a layman?

Basically, what I'm asking is: If a trick can amaze spectators, but cannot fool a magician, does it mean the trick is worse than one that can amaze & fool both [people]?

P.S. Think in the mind of a magician whose goal is to amaze people, not just magicians.

 

[drorange]

i would say that a trick is based on how it fools laymen not magicians as the main audience is laymen. If the trick can fool a magician i would say it is harder to work out how its done but not necessarily a stronger effect.

 

[Jakeh]

You shouldn't be concerned with "magician foolers" as you aren't performing for magicians, you're performing for laypeople.. unless a group of magicians hire you for a birthday party, of course.

 

[Gui42]

Yes, but remember that magcians most of the times anylize trick differently, in our eys a simple Frech drops is amzilgly simple, but for the spactador is the most impossible effect. I have had amzing reactions using "here then there". Make it simple... because if you are going to try to "fool" a magician you would need to use the most complicate gimmick ever.

I have Project I by Dani Garcia and it has great effects. One was very very good Third Degree may or may not be worth the effort. A spectator selects a card that is returned to the deck. A lit cigarette is burned through the cards and stops at the spectator's selection. The problem is, it is a major gimmick, and it would fool a lot of magicians but in the eys of the espactdor it as strong. maybe less strong then the simple "here then there".

I am not trying to say i am lazy and i dont like to do big gimmicks, but simplicity is the key.

One thing that magicians loose is the ability of being astonished by little things such as a "french drop" and one thing that is great about theory 11 is the it is very simple, yet with major effects

 

[Mop]

Well, I think a magician can go to a spectator and show him a simple DL and he would be amazed as hell, but on the other hand anohter magician can walk up to someone and show them Sinful and they won´t be that amazed because the magician is a bad performer.

It all depends on you showmanship.
This weekend i.e. I was on birthday party and made some tricks. First I forced a card and did a bit of mind reading, but it didn´t get good reactions and after that I did a normal ACR with a DL and they just went nuts because I put more pattern in it.

Use simple tricks and transform them in mircales!

 

[Cyrus]

As it has already been said, Magicians think differently than laymen, so how well it can fool a magician has absolutely nothing to do with how amazing a trick will be for laypeople. Just because a trick can fool both laymen and magicians that doesn't make it greater than a trick that can only fool laypeople.

-Cyrus

 

[lachomagician]

Well, to answer your question, no, an effect is not stronger because it can fool a magician. If you want to show off to your magician friends then sure, a magician fooler effect is what you should do. But trust me, I recently did a small sandwich trick on the spectators hands. The thing is all but self-working... and my spectator nearly passed out.
The best tricks are the simplest ones in my eyes. The least you have to do the better, since that way even the most observant spectators cannot suspect you of sleight of hand.


Juan

 

[darosa.justin]

How about if I was to create an effect. Its a no-brainer for a magician, but for a spectator it kills.

Would you say the trick isn't that great? Or as long as it amazes a spectator it's fine.

 

[2ndDeal]

How about if I was to create an effect. Its a no-brainer for a magician, but for a spectator it kills.

Would you say the trick isn't that great? Or as long as it amazes a spectator it's fine.

As been said before, magician foolers are completely different thing from great tricks.
It really doesn't matter how well it fools magicians, as long as it works for laymen. As long as it is great for laymen, it's great trick (or routine).

 

[Ben Long]

Well, I'll just say this: In general, when an effect fools magicians, the method is usually so clever that it becomes real magic to the spectators. To boot: look at DG's "White or Wheat." Its method is really quite clever. It uses crazy ninja moves. I know I was completely fooled the first few times I saw it. The effect it has on spectators is more powerful than other sandwich effects I do.

Or look at the trick that fooled Dai Vernon. Blizzard seems like real magic to spectators as well, when in reality it is so simple.

So basically, the goal of a trick should not specifically be to fool magicians, but if it does, you know it's going to devastate laymen.