Exactly! I revisit these videos/lectures, every few months, and I feel like I retain new insight every single time. I’ve heard it all before, but I tend do not retain everything in one go. Same goes for my old classic books. I reread techniques and theory, over and over again, and it continues to provide fresh insight. The people only interested in method, I feel tend to be the younger generations ( with exceptions obviously ), that I see performing and teaching on YT, that have no business doing so

well said

Thanks for the time stamp. He sounds like that actor from the big short and from the office, I think Steve Carroll Lmfao

@vic couldn't have said it any better nothing but senseless babbling about info that is completely irrelevant!!

I been watching his ring for 20 mins and its driving me crazy.

Except that's not the Berglas Effect. That has the card and number chosen by the audience.

You "believe" that none of them reveals the method. While many have, yet you don't accept it. Perhaps THAT is what magic is all about. Arthur Conan Doyle famously believed that Houdini possessed supernatural powers... and nothing that Houdini said could convince Doyle otherwise. To reject the various methods for the illusion (and there are many at work) is to assert that one knows, with certainty and specificity, of that which they do not know. This is impossible. The methods for ACAAN are not only known... they are well known, yet remain rejected by those with an unshakable conviction to the contrary.

Went there...same bs..."the most effective ACAAN is the one I don't do et. etc.

@@kingrobert1st Huh? I don't think I said that... anywhere. The most effective ACAAN is the one that convinces your spectator that you actually found any freely selected card at any freely selected number. The method is a secondary issue. That's why the first 30 minutes are important in this talk. I said "The most complex, difficult methodology for this effect is one that I don't do". That's a very different thing. I demonstrate that an effective presentation doesn't have to be difficult at all. Many hard hitting effects are merely well planned and prepared, like some of the options that I present here.

And a comprehensive thank you for your comment.

Marc Paul's ACAAN on Parkinson 20 years ago was the "Berglas Effect" and it was not Wind's, Kettlewell's and it was not 'stooged' (an assumption many made for years). There are other options for perfection that track closer to Berglas' methods... but there is a cost and bar of willingness for the performer to accept.

@@thecommonmagician i’ll search this also. Thanks for the informations

Cant tell you how but I perform it the same way kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qdd7gNl_ldLGoZc.html

Stooge is the guy that holds the cards

This will get you started. You need to take the math and use it in conjunction with a count and a shift to place the card at a particular number (like you would with any memorized deck). If you analyze the stack you may find ways to employ the method that I discuss at the end with the natural properties of the stack: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/isqEedqWzs2ldmg.html

Thank you for sharing! You must be referring to the Richard Kaufman book. Richard's version was the one that I was referring to in the video but his name wasn't coming to me at the time.

The Common Magician it was around 2006 in Newcastle, some great magicians that year... www.shieldsgazette.com/news/magicians-in-return-spell-1-1243181/amp

The Common Magician ps. it was the david britland book.

I use the asi winds acaan and I think it's the best. It is really not that hard, you just have to practice.

Heyy can u help me with the asi winds accan

Can you help me with Asi Wind acaan?

Thank you for the kind words. Actually I am not at all a professional. I make a living in public school music education. Magic has been a love of mine since I was very little and I do it on occasion for family and friends... sometimes I spring something on my students, especially if it can illustrate a lesson point or make a positive relationship connection. I have never earned a single cent on performing magic and that is really the point of this channel. The common magician, the hobbyist, the amateur can certainly acquire very powerful methods and approaches that baffle and inspire those that they come in contact with. Good magic doesn't have to come at a price too great for the full time working amateur to bear. Likewise, the professional need not knuckle-bust their way to amazement.

@@thecommonmagician Wow you are such an admirable person. I just graduated from my university, my major is BA. I've got into magic for about almost 2 years and I might be not pursuing magic as a main job like you. At the present I just want to be like you, have a main job as a businessman and keep magic as a hobby to make people around me happy, and i hope that magic will help me in my business too 😁

@@thecommonmagician Nice knowing your what your "real" occupation is. My initial thought was that you were in the sciences, a research scientist or a physician. Comprehensive for sure...much like review articles in medicine. Keep up the great work.

This is a tutorial for an effect... not a trick. You should watch the whole thing. If I explained the method straight out, you likely would dismiss it and you wouldn't appreciate the possibilities for the effect.

Telling the spectator what to believe in is more important (and often completely sufficient) than demonstrating a fact. Think about the most common form of the perfect ACAAN... The performer has a deck of cards in the box, sitting alone on a table or stool. The performer says that it is shuffled, but this is never demonstrated... and the deck is actually arranged in stack. Even though this is partly the most preferred method by most magicians, it essentially depends on 'presentation' as the method. The cards are not actually shuffled, they are arranged... but the premise is stated as a lie and then dismissed by the performer so that the audience will merely accept it. This is no different than having a spectator reverse count from the top and then turning the counted packet to reveal the bottom card... calling it the X card. It is a ruse that depends on the spectator accepting a false assertion without proof. There are no moves, just the need for a believable and bold presentation.

Link?

They are a vintage-looking Bicycle print.

Or you could check out my book where I talk more deeply about these things that you feel I should investigate: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qrqPh86Kpq3ednk.html

@@thecommonmagician I don't think I need to, thank you. I really like the version of the ACAAN I'm doing rn, because it doesn't force anything and I let the spectator shuffle the cards at the begining. I'm sure you did some good work in that book, but I'm not interested. I spent enough money on a trick that is not even that impressive, despite being the "Holy grail of card magic". After reading Juan Tamariz, I found so many stronger effects than the ACAAN.

These are Bicycle Autobike No. 1 playing cards. One of the classic/vintage type prints of the Bicycle deck that USPCC has put out.

You get this video as a gift and you have the audacity to criticise? What an insult. It would not be better. What would be better would be if you shut your insolent, entitled mouth.

J G man chill

@@jangray395 deep breaths my dude

That's only because it is presenting in the mirror upside-down here. If it were held toward the mirror, the order of the letters would reverse.

It is a tutorial... a tutorial about a wide variety of methods and the things that are far more important than the method itself when performing the effect. Enjoy!... or not.

The first in that video was good for nearly everyone that was there, but it doesn't survive through video footage. That video was actually recorded as a demonstration for Richard Kaufman's book on the effect. Berglas would say that the first is ACAAN and not the Berglas Effect because he touches the cards.

A couple points on that, and they all have to do with spectator perception and how you guide it as the performer. You prove that you have a shuffled untouched deck IF you shuffle the deck and then (in the spectator's mind) the trick begins after the shuffle. When some people perform this in a stage environment where they never touch the deck and a spectator deals the cards face up, they have essentially 'proven' that the deck is shuffled because it appears shuffled in the deal and they prove that it is untouched because they never touched the deck. But the truth is that the deck got there somehow and was 'shuffled' (put in that state) by someone (logically, the performer). The reason why these truths are ignored has to do with the audience perception of when the trick begins. So the questions are: Can an audience be convinced that a deck is shuffled when the performer shuffles it? And can an audience be convinced that the trick started after the deck was shuffled... and in that context, the performer never touches the deck? I think that the answer has to be yes to both, otherwise there is no trick that a magician can perform that will be effective. When you read about accounts of David Berglas' performances of this effect for small groups or individuals, you can often find places in the account where he is violating the rules and the spectator is willfully ignoring the violation by filling in the gap with their own wishful thinking. I.E. "I named a thought of card and then I named a thought of number... and then he told me to look in the front pocket of his brief case. There, I found a deck of cards... etc." This is totally hands off, but it actually violates some rules. Yet, in the spectators mind, the trick starts when they find the deck. It's an example of masterful planning and conditioning of the spectator. The goal is not to actually perform any feat... but rather to find a way to convince a person or a group that a particular feat has been performed (when it actually hasn't). Now all of that being said, there may be a way to have the spectator shuffle the deck, then have your hands on it (in a forgettable manner) and then have the trick 'begin' at a point where you then never handle the deck (I can think of a few ways to do that without involving a confederate).

You do know you can edit your actual typo right? :P

Christophe L yea

LURK KARTMAN3XY I don’t know that one will look it up

LURK KARTMAN3XY is it me or does this guy deserve more subs I have a KZfaq channel but his is probably better than mind

Just saw it that’s amazing

Don't you mean Assy Wind?

I’m pretty sure its asi Winds not to be rude

You are very loosely describing the "pre-show" method of mentalism. Obviously the presentation of this method requires careful scripting to create the necessary dual reality.

@@thecommonmagician On the other hand.... this one.. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gOCcZdShzpPLhGg.html she shuffle after... how is it done?!

1:22:30 is where I talk about the exact method in play (which relies on pre-show development and dual reality for the live spectators). The tutorial is not merely about this 1 demonstration. The tutorial is about ACAAN... and a very wide variety of approaches to the effect.

Hey sir! Thank oh for that! Makes much more sense now. Cause I've always had the impression that that those guys have had some EXCLUSIVE ACAAN method that's just that DAMN good. But now that makes more sense.

Yes, and a major point that I make in the video is that far too many card magicians consider the best variations on this effect to be the best due to their difficulty in mechanical method. One of the issues that I deal with here is that a solid presentation can be achieved through more accessible (and potentially more powerful) means by mere misdirection from a simple method (as was the case with that example that I gave with Berglas... which I now know, from Berglas himself, had a unique circumstance surrounding it). That being said... any trick done with a deck of cards is a card trick to the spectator, and the performer is a 'card magician' (whatever that is) in that moment. I don't think there is much of a purposeful argument to make on that minor detail, one way or the other. Plenty of great 'card magicians' of the past (especially those that wrote and taught on the subject) advocated that finding a way to successfully perform an effect without the use of a 'move' or the intervention of a sleight is always an improvement on the effect.

The Common Magician first i would like to say that i liked your presentation and discourse here. Very well thought out, informative & thought provoking. You are obviously quite the card man and have a lot of intelligence & passion for the art. I totally agree with you on most of the major points... i have a deep love of cards myself, but i havent performed a “card trick” in 15 years or so...not that i dont use cards for demonstration purposes, but no one that ever sees me walks away thinking that they just saw a card trick nor do they describe it as such in recounting it to others... I stumbled on your video by happenstance and i dig it...ill check out some of your others. Job well done! Keep up the good work!!

Hey, do you know a way of avoiding the pass, I don't do the trick just because I suck at the pass

younes mohssen check out Asi wind ACAAN

Make sure you watch the whole thing as I present multiple methods. Also be sure to watch the Volume 2 link in the description (just posted a couple days ago and deals with burnable impromptu methods). But also watch this: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gJqpppyFudXaZIU.html which will answer your question as to performing the initial version on the video in an impromptu setting. Good luck! Watch the whole thing... don't take the easy way out and don't discount any options.

Sure it's a discussion! You can talk back to me... I just can't hear you.

Hey... people are actually quite militant about a difference between ACAAN and CAAN... but the spectator sees no distinction (because in practice there really is none, statistically speaking). This can be used to your advantage when developing your own method and passing it off as 'any card' found at 'any number'.

Igor Svačić Nice! You know, I wish I had magician friends I could hang out with in person and talk about this stuff with. I feel like I’m the only guy doing this in a city of 130,000. I should find some meet ups. I know the Lorraine move, I’ll start studying Green, I know he’s top notch.

@@johnhein2539 Well, I dont have a single person into magic :) And Im not a magician, Im just a huuuge fan of magic and allways was, so I do it just for the fun, here and there I perform for friends etc. Actually the time I spent with a deck or coins or rubber bands in my hands is illogical, compared to how much I actually perform. I just love to practice. About Lennart, I dont actually like him that much. I think the theory of looking "as bad and sloppy" as you can so when you actually pull some things would be the biggest peak possible is a bad one. But I am and will be eternally gratefull to him for his snap deal sleight. It was so usefull so good to me over the years. Altrough I never ever perform it in his "laser deal" style, I use it for switches mainly as in this case, but also for stealing cards , than for controls (you "deal" it on the half of deck and put the other half on top while in process you leave it on the other half, therefore control it on the top.) My audience never know I use it. But its a great, great sleight, so innocent, so natural, so devious.

@@igorsvacic217 I spotted you criticizing very talented people again: I never saw crazy appeal in this one, About Lennart, I don't actually like him (you seem to like the snap deal though what about top shot and green shot?). Anyways I think I'll give your acaan a try. Seems like a good one! I'm sure you remember me...

@@TheFolderOrigami Dude where Im criticizing him? Im criticizing the effect lol, theres million acaans I like perhaps 2 of them, and even than I perform only the one described. I dont like Lennarts magic at all acually, I think he is waaay over the top with gicving the sloppy impression (so he can have the bigger gap between bad card handling and crazy effect). Top shot never found a use for it (i dont like flourishing much in prformance), and I cant see how to use it for some change, decoy, etc. Snap deal was super usefull to me over the years, but neveer performed it like him, my audience never know I use it.

@@igorsvacic217 well you're indirectly criticizing David berglass. One use for top shot would be to use it as a colour change the way Takumi Takahashi seems to use it a lot. Or you could use double backers with two different colours ( example: red on one side, blue on the other). That way you could achieve the same affect as Eric chien with his ribbon act. You would have to deal the cards normally and get the blue side of the card and when you topshot the card flips over and magically changes into a red one. I particularly like practicing Lennart greens effects because they usually seem to be quite challenging but fun to learn at the same time.

What about if the deck is recalled as not having been handled... even though it was? We should think differently about presentation and recall, not treating all effects as if they were captured on video with instant replay.

You must have lost count of the number of methods, approaches and applications that I provided... not to mention the performance theory. A single method trick usually gets an average of 10 minutes on KZfaq. Methinks your math needs work. You are welcome for the content and discussion. Which method do you use for this effect?

Can you tell me how many second the tutorial? Please

My version looks just like the real Berglas effect, but method is different....I met David Berglas and Peter Turner last year and spoke with both of them till 2.00am in the morning ... and no I do not use any stooges... Davids a real gent

How did you found out about Lu Chens version? Did he also use a stooge? And do you think the version Marc Paul was showing in the long ago TV show were he was a guest was also involving a stooge?

@@themagicman6965 checout my latest video on my chanmel I revideoed it on Christmas Eve....and it is not stooged...however I beleive this is the same way thecoriganal was performed.

@@mysticmarkthemagician5852 I've just watched it. Of course that's the cleanest of the cleanest performances, but as a Magician I don't believe that what we saw in the video was all that happend^^ By the way, I recognize you. I might have stumped over your first video or so long ago. To the Bierglas effect itself: I don't know how much you know and if you read his book. I can tell you that he really explains (despite what others say) it in the book and that the method has multiple outs/possibilitys and a lot of psychology. If one really want to do the REAL Berglas Effect, he has to study and train it for a long long time.

I wrote the Bierglas effect hahaha.

Because I am teaching a whole lot of stuff... and it isn't merely just methods.

@@thecommonmagician ok why you did'nt reveal the ice cold acaan

@@rathiravikumar8230 I did discuss the general principle in the video. But I won't show you the exact procedure for a marketed effect. That's not what I do.

No. I didn't. I am saying that if you can do a force, then you can do an ACAAN. There is also a difference between forcing what may look like a free choice and forcing what may look like a random outcome.

But usually I sound like myself.

Culling the herd.

Video is a pile of shit. An hour and a half of incoherent waffle about basic methods of acaan, be grateful you only wasted 10 minutes of your life. If you’re looking for a real acaan, learn the mnemonica stack and practice Asi Winds acaan. Million times better than this garbage.

Nonsense. If you are saying what I think you are saying.

If you learned English you'd still be moronic.

Yes, that is a feature on this channel to keep the merely curious viewers out. Most of my content is long-form and deep dive. Sweet dreams!

I'm 70 yrs old. I don't have time for long drawn out technical jargon. I just want to learn the trick before I pass away for good. Nite Nite.

You can't cover what I covered in 10 minutes. This is not some 'trick' give-away where I show you a method for an effect and then beg for subscribers and 'likes'.

When a spectator names a card from a face up open spread, as I am discussing here, it IS a thought of card. They have complete control over the outcome and the randomness of the deck decides nothing. Some folks call this approach CAAN... but it most certainly is not. It is all ACAAN to the spectator that believes that their choice was free and fair. The problem is with the perception of freedom and fairness. The rest of it is just semantics.

Better cut and run while you can.

Another one bites the dust.

It's some pretty useful blah blah blah.

Awe Michael thanks! That's very kind of you. I'm so glad that someone such as yourself got the point of the video and channel. Hey... You're the man.

@@thecommonmagician Don't take my comment as a personal criticisms. They are not. They are criticisms of the video and its format: This video is not satisfying on a fundamental level. There is no arc to it. No drama. No payoffs. We don't even see your face, but instead stare at your hands in a still shot. It goes on and on with comments that are off topic or barely on topic. I think your previous video method of posting smaller videos was the way to go rather than one magnum opus. It's not as if there are chapters or a table of contents, so the viewer is obligated to watch this incredibly long discussion without a road map or any real payoffs along the way. Try to watch it yourself. I doubt you will get through it. Certainly not more than once, and learning a routine requires multiple viewings. So what are we to do? The time honored method of "effect" and then "method" is much more satisfying. I do not think this long format is useful or enjoyable. Again, it's not personal criticism. I'm sure you're a wonderful guy doing your best. To me, this experiment yielded valuable data. You should see that as a victory. The data conclusion? It is difficult to engage with a still camera shot of someone's hands for 90 minutes.

@@FriedlandM the irony in the discussion here is that your short response came across as smug (because it was)... yet your longer, more thoughtful response provided a deeper insight into your critique. hmmm... "You should see this as a victory". There is valuable data there for you. 😉 I believe in the long form. This channel isn't for move monkeys and highly experienced, working magicians. I doubt that there is a single thing on this channel that I can teach you (related to magic). I am speaking to others that are hobbyists and interested in video/podcast discussions (short and long) on ideas that are realistic to them. I don't monetize (because I have no need for it) and I don't hound for subscriptions and likes. I put up a camera when I can and talk to people about what I know and what I think... sometimes at length, with plenty of digressions and 'sidebars'. I am a conservatory musician, composer and public school educator. That doesn't mean that I would offer demeaning remarks (especially without explanation) in an effort to turn others away from someone's hobbyist music channel. I don't have the time or insecurities for that nonsense. So, I welcome your second response and consider your first to be trash.

Hey man. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. Evidently I did. The internet is a callous place and I didn't mean to offend you or contribute to that dark reality. If the video meets your needs, then that's the end of it. I'm happy for you. We can't please everyone all the time! I wonder if it could do more to satisfy you though. I think that producing videos that are shorter would fulfill the same need to share, while increasing your prevalence in searches. It also puts fewer eggs into each basket. You are not shouting your thoughts into a vacuum, but releasing content on the internet, so I assume feedback of some kind is what you are looking for. You're not monetizing, etc...there has to be some reason. I think getting more positive feedback would feel good for you. Speculating of course. Regarding long form, that's awesome. However, magic requires repetition to learn the concepts and moves etc. It is hard to get that repetition without some lines of demarcation to refer back to, such as chapters, page numbers, etc. As a musician, I'm sure you acknowledge that good music has dynamics, and sections. Verse, pre chorus, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, autro, etc. A monotone, piece of music is not quite...music. I believe the above criticism applies to the video you made, although perhaps I didn't give it enough of a chance? That is the downside of long form--if the first few pages or chapters don't pull in the reader/viewer, sometimes they jump ship, even if the work is a masterpiece. Finally, imagine having a conversation with someone that doesn't make any facial expressions. It's...weird. Similarly, it's hard to stay engaged with this video without seeing your face and expressions adding to the underscoring of your feelings, whatever they may be. In any event--didn't mean to hurt your feelings and let me know if I can be helpful to you. All the best, MF

@@FriedlandM a couple things: You absolutely did not hurt my feelings, there are no worries there. Your third response is even more welcome than the second... you are speaking your mind on specifics and I have a great deal of appreciation for that. I don't even disagree with you. I show my face very little. That's not going to change. I do use my name and have shown my face a few times, but I am a public school teacher first and foremost and I don't need to paste my face all over the Internet. That's also the reason for a lack of monetization. I don't need it and I don't have the time or interest to commit to developing the channel into much beyond what it is. Consider that we have been fairly confined to home over the past month and I have uploaded very little. Even now, I don't have a lot of time for this. So when I deal with a topic, I have often put it all out there in a longer video discussion for a viewer to take or leave. Even if the format doesn't suit one's liking (and that's perfectly fine), I think the idea that the presentation isn't worthy of anyone's time is disingenuous. When David Berglas shocked me by making contacting after watching the video, he indicated much the opposite. For what it's worth, I intended for the video to be honest, and as complete on various (and I work through quite a few in the time given, if we are being fair) realistic strategies as a "common magician" could be. I'm good with that.

So that you remember... if you are interested in learning.

...For you to listen. This is all about a broad range of concepts (most of them being psychological)... not quick videos about mere methods and mechanics (like what the 'cool kids' are doing these days).

@@thecommonmagician i like you 👍🏼

Glad you got something out of it... like the dozens of combinations, methods and presentations for the effect.

I'm sorry you didn't get anything out of this. But this talk (as with many that I have on the channel) is not about 'a method'... it is about 'pulling off the effect' by means of any (if not every) method. In short, if you came shopping for a 'bowling ball'... I'm sorry that we were having a limited sale on 'bowling shoes' in the 'store' today.

Only a waste of time for a reprobate idiot.

At witch time he explains the beginning trick

Does he not teach the method for the first trick at the beginning? I'm gonna watch the whole video either way because I'm very interested in this effect, but still curious. I'm sure I'll probably have the video watched before I get an answer to this question, as I'm starting to watch it now. But the method for the first trick is what I've been searching for for a long time. Even if he doesn't teach it, I'd really like like to know where I can find it. Is it in a book? Which book? I need to know lol. But here we go, off to the video.