251 Again, it will be discussed further ahead how we actually narrow this down from one of two pairs to the actual thought-of card. I must stress that whilst Michael and I have our own preferences for which type of stack to use, there are absolutely no differences to the outward effect as a result of using one type of stack over another. There is certainly nothing stopping you, the reader, from crafting your own stack that better suits you. The full stack is as follows: Creating Separations: There is one final piece necessary to complete this level of the puzzle. We need some way in which we can differentiate between the three distinct sections of the deck. There are several options that we favour. One of the simplest methods demands that you instil in your spectator the idea that somehow looking at the cards is important. Perhaps your presentation is such that you have explained to the spectator that they are to spread through the deck and to think of any card they see. In this instance, you further explain that there happen to be two cards that cause more confusion than any other, and these are the two Jokers. As you explain this, you spread through the deck, turning each Joker face down as you come to it. Of course, you have strategically placed the Jokers in the necessary positions beforehand (17th and Once Removed Top Section Nine of Clubs Ace of Clubs Five of Clubs Six of Hearts Six of Diamonds Eight of Hearts Five of Spades Two of Hearts Eight of Clubs Ten of Clubs Three of Hearts Queen of Clubs Three of Diamonds Seven of Hearts Queen of Spades Ace of Hearts Middle Section Two of Diamonds Ten of Hearts Jack of Clubs Nine of Spades Seven of Clubs Jack of Spades Four of Hearts Two of Clubs Four of Diamonds Nine of Hearts Jack of Hearts Seven of Diamonds Four of Clubs Jack of Diamonds Ten of Spades Four of Spades Bottom Section Queen of Hearts Eight of Diamonds Ace of Spades Three of Clubs Ten of Diamonds Queen of Diamonds Three of Spades Seven of Spades Six of Clubs Nine of Diamonds Five of Hearts Two of Spades Eight of Spades Five of Diamonds Ace of Diamonds Six of Spades
252 A Piece Of My Mind 34th from the face of the deck), such that they act as separators between the sections of the deck. The fact that you have turned them face down makes some sort of sense to the spectator; you don’t want them to look at the Jokers, somehow confusing what is about to transpire. Of course, with the Jokers face down, and the spectator fanning the cards towards themselves, it will be glaringly obvious as to which section is currently being looked at; you are simply watching for the Jokers to pass by. The method we prefer is to take the two Jokers and to sign a very large fake signature across the back of each one, making sure to sign fairly close to the edge of the card. Signing near to the edges allows you to still see the Joker very clearly should the spectator spread the cards quite tightly. Again, these Jokers are reinserted into the 17th and 34th positions from the face of the deck. We have also explored the possibility of using the natural double-faced advertising cards that come supplied with most modern decks. These are cards that would naturally be found in a brand-new pack, and whilst typically removed before use, would not be too out of place; their presence is easily brushed off if questioned, as if you had merely forgotten to remove them when the pack was first opened. In certain circumstances, you may find it difficult to tell exactly in which section the spectator is looking; perhaps they seem to be staring right at one of your separator cards. In this instance, we suggest you ask the spectator to break the pack, and gently touch their card to their chest. This breaking allows you to clearly see in which section their card lies. The Next Step: So at this point you should be in a position whereby you understand how we can significantly narrow down a thought-of card to a group of 2 pairs with either of the stacks. With the “Murray Stack” we perform our calculations as we go, giving us 4 possible pairs, and discovering the colour helps narrow this down further to two possible pairs. With the “Shaw Stack” we just remember the sections that were observed, and upon discovering the colour of the thought-of card, we perform our calculation to arrive directly at the two possible pairs. I am sure that the reader has already jumped to the conclusion that it would now be possible to “fish” for that final piece of information in
253 order to know the exact pair that has been thought of. Whilst this strategy may be useful in the beginning, as you find yourself getting used to the procedure, there are alternatives to fishing which allow you to name the thought-of card with absolutely no doubt. Should something go awry with the process detailed further on in this book to determine the exact card, you can always revert to fishing as a backup. You will notice that within any single-coloured group of cards, irrespective of stack, there is one odd-valued pair and one even-valued pair. Fishing for as to whether the value of the thought-of card is odd or even will allow you to say with certainty which pair of cards had been thought of. In the early days of “Once Removed” we quite happily terminated the effect at this point and, with the right presentation, were able to garner a strong reaction from spectators. In order to illustrate what is possible at this point, it may be of benefit to provide a basic version of the type of presentation that we would have originally used: “In a moment’s time, I am going to ask you to think of a playing card. However, I must explain that what I am about to do is not 100 percent sure fire. Believe it or not, there are some cards that are harder for me to pick up on than others.” If you have decided to use the reversed Jokers as the separators between the sections, then you may like to continue with something as follows: “In fact, two cards that are more troublesome than any others are the two Jokers. To save any confusion, I’ll just turn them face down, that way you can’t see them.” “I’d like you to spread through this deck, and to lock eyes on a single card that appeals to you more than any other.” They do. You instruct them to close up the spread. You’re mentally noting in which section they have stopped. “Hmmmm, this is difficult. I’m struggling. There are always some cards that cause interference. Quite often it’s the mate of a card that causes interference. A mate: same value, same colour, different suit. You understand how that could be confusing. Please, spread through the deck and lock eyes on the mate of your card, which might help me get a feeling for which card you were thinking of.” Again they are instructed to close the spread. “Concentrate on the value of your card for a moment. Odd, even, odd, even. Hmmm, an odd value is coming through strong. Is that right? No? I was damned Once Removed
254 A Piece Of My Mind sure I was getting an Ace there. This is really tough, but I think I was close with the Ace, really close. You know, I wish it was a bit clearer, but all I can get is the vision of the two red Two’s, the Two of Hearts and the Two of Diamonds. Was that right?” As magicians, we may fail to fully appreciate the strength in sometimes falling short. Particularly with routines of a mental nature, or where we are claiming to use some developed skill, then getting close, but not exact, can lend credibility to our claims. In this instance, being able to ascertain that the spectator was thinking of one of the red Twos is pretty impressive. There is also a credible reason for your apparent failure in being able to get the exact card: there just isn’t enough of a difference between the Two of Hearts and the Two of Diamonds for it to be accurately transferred from their mind to yours. Demanding Exactitude: We are lucky that there are several ways in which we can garner further information from either of the aforementioned stacks, allowing us to exactly identify the thought-of card. Firstly, we can use some simple observations to be able to state: “The card you were thinking of was ‘card x’ and then you looked at its mate, ‘card y’, did you not?” This offers us a precision that has not yet been explained, elevating the effect from “You were thinking of the two red Sevens” to “You were thinking of the Seven of Spades, and then you thought of its mate, the Seven of Clubs.” Obviously this precision allows your presentation to exclude the naming of the mate during the final revelation completely, only referencing this mate when asking the spectator for clarification. Let us first take a look at how this is achieved with the “Murray Stack”. When we discussed the “Murray Stack” previously, the individual sections of the deck were listed, with the assumption that you would take each section and shuffle it to create a random order. If, on the other hand, we create a “sub-stack” within each section, we can use this to calculate the exact thought-of card. The following table illustrates the exact full deck stack as currently used by Michael with the first card, the Two of Hearts, residing as the face card of the face-up
255 deck, and the last card, the Five of Hearts, being the bottom card of the face-up deck. The “Murray Stack” has a very devious method of organising the cards by suit that, whilst going unnoticed by the spectator, will allow us to know the suit of the thought-of cards by noticing their positions relative to each other. In order to do this, there are several pieces of information required. You must be in a position whereby you already know the colour of the thought-of card and have calculated its value. You must also be able to recall the order in which the spectator looked at each section; e.g., you must remember that they looked in the middle section first, followed by the bottom section. Michael has constructed his stack such that the dominant suits, Hearts and Spades, will lie nearer to the face of the deck than their counterparts should the value of the thought-of card be even. Likewise, should the value be odd, the non-dominant suits, Diamonds and Clubs, will lie nearer to the face than the dominant suits. To Clarify: A red, even-valued card: The card nearest to the face of the deck will be the Heart, and the other card Once Removed Top Section Two of Hearts Queen of Spades Eight of Hearts Six of Spades Ace of Diamonds Jack of Clubs Seven of Diamonds Five of Clubs Ten of Hearts Nine of Diamonds Eight of Spades Seven of Clubs Ace of Hearts Jack of Spades Queen of Clubs Two of Diamonds Middle Section Four of Hearts Two of Spades Queen of Hearts Ten of Spades Three of Diamonds Ace of Clubs Eight of Diamonds Seven of Hearts Six of Clubs Five of Spades Jack of Diamonds Nine of Clubs Three of Hearts Ace of Spades Two of Clubs Four of Diamonds Bottom Section Six of Hearts Four of Spades Ten of Diamonds Eight of Clubs Five of Diamonds Three of Clubs Nine of Hearts Seven of Spades Queen of Diamonds Jack of Hearts Ten of Clubs Nine of Spades Four of Clubs Three of Spades Six of Diamonds Five of Hearts
256 A Piece Of My Mind will be a Diamond. A red, odd-valued card: The card nearest to the face of the deck will be the Diamond, and the other card will be a Heart. A black, even-valued card: The card nearest to the face of the deck will be the Spade, and the other card will be a Club. A black, odd-valued card: The card nearest to the face of the deck will be the Club, and the other card will be a Spade. A quick example may help matters. The spectator is asked to think of any card; they do, and when asked to sight it in the deck, they spread right through to the bottom section. They are then asked to think of the mate of this card, and again, to sight it in the deck. This time, they sight a card in the top section. Let us assume that we have used the aforementioned strategies to arrive at the two red Tens. As this is an even-valued red card, we know that the card nearest the face will be the Heart, and the remaining card will be the Diamond. In our example, the card that was nearest the face was the mate, as opposed to the freely thought-of card. We can now, with confidence, state that the thought-of card was the Ten of Diamonds, and its mate was the Ten of Hearts. The “Shaw Stack” also allows you to discern the suit of each of the cards in turn, both the thought-of card and its mate, and again, their positions relative to each other are used in this process. The difference with the “Shaw Stack” is that this process does not take into account the value of the thought-of card and its mate. A Club will always be nearer the face of the deck than a Spade, and a Heart will always be nearer the face than a Diamond. Again, a quick example. The spectator is asked to think of any card; they do, and when asked to sight it in the deck, they spread right through to the bottom section. They are then asked to think of the mate of this card, and again, to sight it in the deck. This time, they sight a card in the top section. You ascertain the colour of their thought-of card. Let us assume this is a red card. At this point, using the “Shaw Stack” we know either the two red Aces or the two red Eights were looked at. Let us assume that we conclude it was the two red Eights (whilst you may fish for this if you so wish, some further suggestions follow ahead). We
257 know that with the “Shaw Stack” the card nearest the face in this circumstance will be the Eight of Hearts, in this instance the mate of the thought-of card as it was the section looked at second. Thus the thought-of card must have been the Eight of Diamonds as it was deeper (further toward the bottom of the face-up deck) than its mate. I hope the more astute reader will have noticed that it is not always the case that the cards will be in two distinctly different sections. Irrespective of the stack used, you must be aware of the respective positions of both sighted cards. You may find that the spectator sights both cards in the top section. In this instance, you must be aware of whether the first sighted card, their thought-of card, was nearer the face than the second sighted card, the mate. In practice, once the fundamental principles of “Once Removed” are fully understood, you will have far less strain on your mental faculties, and will be able to focus fully on observing the relative positions of each card. No Fishing: For those who have fully embraced and understood the principles explained so far, the stacks that have been discussed each have one more feature. In order to remove the need for any fishing whatsoever, you will be required to make some further observations as to where the spectator has looked whilst sighting their cards in the deck. It is only advised that you progress with this added process when you are fully comfortable with everything that has been previously discussed. Trying to juggle too many mental processes at once will certainly inhibit your ability to perform to your maximum potential. Each of the stacks has its own unique way of allowing you to remove the need to fish in order to understand whether the thought-of card is of an odd or even value. The following process allows you, with exact certainty, to name the thought-of card by simply observing whereabouts in the deck the cards have been sighted, and discovering whether the card was red or black. With the “Murray Stack” the first four cards of each section are even in value. When the spectator is looking for any of their two cards, you must be aware as to whether they have looked at any card that lies within the first four of a given section. If, at any point during the sighting of their cards, the spectator looks at a card that is one of the first four of any of the individual sections, then you Once Removed
258 A Piece Of My Mind know that the value of their thought-of card is even. If they do not look at a card within the first four of any group, then you know that the thought-of cards are odd. Things work slightly differently with the “Shaw Stack”. Each section can be split further into two sections, each containing 8 cards. The first 8 cards of each section contain red cards with an even value, and black cards with an odd value. The last 8 cards of each section contain red cards with an odd value, and black cards with an even value. When observing the spectator’s actions, you are waiting for the moment at which you notice them sighting a card that clearly rests near the top or the bottom of a particular section. For example, they sight a card at the very top of the bottom section, and a card in the top section (yet you are unable to catch exactly where), and you ascertain it is a red card, then you know it must be an even-valued card. You remember that in the first eight cards of any given section, the red cards are even, and the spectator looked quite clearly at a card within the top 8 cards. You can immediately arrive at the two red Eights, with the first card, the thought-of card, being the Diamond, and the second card, the mate, being the Heart. The Lonely Kings: So far, we have totally ignored the existence of any of the Kings. Whilst Michael and I both have different approaches to the use of our specific stacks, we do both agree on how we think we should deal with a spectator who thinks of one of the Kings. I thought it best to withhold any mention of the Kings during the explanation of the stacks, in order to prevent confusion. However, both Michael and I do insert one red King and one black King into the deck, at ANY point, and ensure that the other two Kings are secreted in different pockets. Assume for a moment that we have placed the King of Spades and the King of Hearts into our deck, and the other two Kings into two separate pockets. If a spectator were to think of one of the Kings, then one of two situations could occur: Either the King is in the deck, and its mate is not, or vice versa. When asked to locate the mate of their card, if the spectator exclaims that it is not in the deck, then again, simply knowing the colour of the card will tell us all we need to know. It would be a simple matter to twist our patter regarding the troublesomeness of mates to allow us to explain why we
259 removed a single card from the deck in the first place, and placed it into our pocket. To a spectator, you were seemingly able to demonstrate that you knew they would think of a particular card and you removed its mate from the deck before the “trick” even began. Hands On? Hands Off?: When it comes to presenting “Once Removed”, you are offered quite some degree of freedom when it comes to the handling of the deck. Personally, I prefer to hand the deck to the spectator, to take a few steps back and to observe their actions in a totally hands-off manner. Michael, on the other hand, makes use of some very clever hands-on techniques that allow him to eliminate the first “sight your card” request. If you would like to try this approach, then start by making a fan of the cards and asking the spectator to think of any card they see. You must watch their gaze with enough care to be able to tell into which section they are looking. From here, you can then proceed by handing the deck to the spectator, asking them to spread through and to find the mate of their card. I have also witnessed Michael use another hands-off approach to great effect, whereby the deck is spread on the table, and the spectator is asked to look down and to think of any card they see. Again, you watch with care at how they behave, observing into which section they are looking. I know that this whole process might seem very in-depth, but it really is quite simple. I urge you to make up a stack and to explore the principle for yourself. Once Removed
260 A Piece Of My Mind
261 Closing Words...
262 A Piece Of My Mind
263 Thanks and Praise: I would like to thank the following people for helping me with this project. I feel so lucky to have you as my friends and family. Each and every one of you has played a vital part in making this book a reality. I thank you all from the bottom of my heart. Angelo Carbone - For giving up your precious time to listen to my ideas. Atlas Brookings - For the ideas you have shared and the stories you have told. Clive Richardson - For the opportunities you gave me. Ian Cheetham - For the friendship and recipes. Jayne Murray - For putting up with me all these years. John Carey - For your interest in all that I do. John Dobson - For listening to my late night ramblings. Looch - For designing the cover artwork. Mark Elsdon - For your friendship and advice. Mick Wilson - For the talks, beers, curry and the quote. Mike Smith - For helping with the proofing on this project. Myke Philips - For being so kind, generous and an all-round stand up-guy. Mike Vance - For taking time out to help me make this work comprehensible. My Parents - For giving me everything I ever wanted and more. Peter Turner - For being such a huge inspiration to me. Richie Carrigan - For giving this book its title. Steve Haresign - For helping me to bring this work to print. Steve Shaw - For being so supportive of this project from day one. You (the reader) - For investing in my thoughts and keeping my dreams alive. YOU ARE ALL AMAZING!
264 A Piece Of My Mind An Anonymous Quote: “When buying from an artist/maker, you’re buying more than just an object/ painting. You are buying hundreds of hours of failures and experimentation. You are buying days, weeks and months of frustration and moments of pure joy. You aren’t just buying a thing, you’re buying a piece of heart, part of a soul, a moment of someone’s life. Most importantly, you’re buying the artist more time to do something they are passionate about.” Please think twice about torrenting this material. For those that do, may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your armpits! Love to all! Michael Murray, 2014