DIVINE

Thank you very much for purchasing this project.

Following some colleagues' advice, I have included only the essential information in the
tutorial videos and the complete material in this document.

I hope you enjoy the journey.

- Background

Many magicians and mentalists have said that The Impostress Princess (in its many
variations) is the best mentalism effect with cards there is. In 1986, the late Peter
Tappan wrote a book: The Impostress Princess, in which he compiled the history, the
workings, and the performance of the effect (based on a "matrix," also known as the
"pairs re-paired" principle). The book included methods and ideas from great names in
magic, like Al Baker, S. Leo Horowitz, Orville Meyer, Louis Histed, Paul Fox, Al Koran,
among many others.
Twenty-five years later, Phil Willmarth -collaborator in the original Tappan's book-,
published the Expanded version of the work, including twenty-five more years of
thoughts and ideas on the effect provided by Martin Gardner, Simon Aronson, Eugene
Burger, Phil Goldstein, Johnny Thompson, Sid Lorraine, Stewart James, Jack Pyle, John
Shirley, Terry Nosek, Billy McComb, Bruce Bernstein, Irv Weiner, John Mendoza, Barry
Richardson, Jim Steinmeyer, and more.

The book is a complete treatise on an overwhelming amount of information related to

the effect:
• the history
• the methods
• the presentations
• the variations
• the subtleties and ideas provided by the stars of magic mentioned above

Charles Reynolds has described the book as follows:

"One of the best books on magic I have ever read. It is both a first-rate job of scholarship
and a lesson on presenting, for maximum impact, one of the best card effects in
mentalism, in its classic form and a more streamlined modern version. Even if you never
do the effect, and I cannot imagine that you would not, you will learn a lot about the
psychology and showmanship involved in the effective presentation of mystery effects of
all kinds. The lmpostress Princess is, I suspect, destined to become a classic treatise on a
classic effect."

I've learned DIVINE (the name is my idea; the effect's generic name was "The sixteen
cards") around 1980 when I was nine years old. My first teacher, a magician called Hugo
Daniel -with whom I studied very briefly-, taught me the effect in one of our private
classes in his house, where my father took me on Saturday mornings. I had seen him
performing the effect in a family show, and I loved it since then. I remember how
surprised I was when he offered to teach me that effect soon after we started our
classes. Looking back, I can't understand how a nine-year-old kid could have learned
such a complex effect that requires so much attention and work in presentation and
showmanship, let alone tight audience management. At the same time, the performer
seems to be relaxed and detached.

For the following forty years, I have performed the effect, as my closing piece, in every
show I did. For the first fifteen years as a young magician, I have performed it for my
family and friends and in small shows; later, I introduced the effect in corporate events
in my young adulthood. Finally, I have performed the effect in theatres, TV shows, and
now in all of the Virtual Shows I do.
After many of those performances, different people came to talk to me and specifically
mentioned how impressed they were with that effect, which grew more and more and
became a show-stopper.

The effect I perform is as simple (and extraordinary) as it could get: the

mentalist/magician reveals the thought-of cards from every single member of any sized
(live or virtual) audience.

The advantages are many:

- No marked cards
- No setup
- No duplicate cards
- No special cards
- No boards
- No indexes
- No calling out cards
- No memorization
- No fishing
- No peaking
- No switching cards
- No lengthy procedures
- No convoluted explanations
- No angles
- No distance limitations
- No extra objects (no bags, no additional decks, no extra boxes, no extra cards)
- No boredom

- It can be performed with a borrowed deck

- It can be performed with an incomplete deck
- It can be performed with a sub-standard deck
- It can be performed with a kid's deck of any kind
- It can be performed with postcards
- It can be performed with small-sized movie posters
- It can be performed with written words on business cards
- It can be performed with any group of similarly shaped flat objects
- 100% audience participation
Every audience member thinks of a card (even in a streaming performance of any kind,
since the performer does not need to see the audience).

No exaggeration, no magic catalog b.s. marketing trick to make magicians bite the bait.

I have performed it in close-up shows with regular sized cards. I have performed it in
restaurants, table-hopping. I have performed it with jumbo cards whenever possible.
It's always been a blast: people calling the Network, or sending messages, asking how
the magician could read their minds while being far away.

When I was 25 years old, Telecom Stet France hired me to create, design, and host the
world's First Virtual Show for a Convention, EXPO COMM, a four-day massive event
where they would have a cube-shaped theatre for around 50 standing guests, where I
should perform approximately 15 virtual shows a day.
It was 1996, and the Internet had just appeared in Argentina. Still, it wasn't yet in private
houses, so they had to especially tend a fiber optics cable, underneath the streets, from
a TV studio where I was, to the Convention Center where the theatre was built,
separated from each other by 2.5 miles. In that event, I have performed The Impostress
Princess in every show, reading a total of 10.000 minds in about 60 shows in just four
days.
After that, we toured with that Virtual Show for the company, so I kept reading people's
minds in events for 500 to 1000 guests for about a year.
I have included that video with the incomplete performance and the setting, including
my long-lost hair.

I kept doing it as my closing effect in every show until 1999 when I created "The
Alchemist" (available and sold out in 2011). The Alchemist immediately became my
closing and signature piece in theatres and big events, so I removed DIVINE from the
repertoire and saved it for special occasions, repeated customers, etc.

But, as soon as the quarantine hit our world this year and everybody started doing virtual
shows, I began listing effects to perform virtually -because we all know that not all magic
effects can be adapted to a virtual format-. I wanted to perform magic that involved the
most significant amount of guests because my main message for these virtual shows
was going to be "Distance? Isolation? What are you talking about? Magic brings
together and makes distance and separation disappear". And also, "We are more alike
than different. Not when we choose what to be or what to do, but when we scream our
truth to the world, we find out that we are all pretty much the same".

DIVINE immediately became my main effect again, and it became one of the most
impressive moments in my current virtual shows.

Some magicians whom I respect and admire (my dear friends Henry Evans and Carlos
Bronzini among them) "came" to the virtual show. Later, in a conversation, they told me,
"You have to share this effect with the magic world. It's compelling, especially for virtual
shows, and I'm pretty sure that almost nobody is aware of it, nor performing it".
Only then I started thinking about it; I never before felt that I had something of value to
share. My colleagues convinced me that the effect I perform is pretty unknown
worldwide, especially for virtual shows, especially involving every audience member.

So, I talked with my dear friend and magic consultant Carlos Bronzini (a great
Argentinean magician, lecturer, and creator). He mentioned The Impostress Princess
book and its history, versions, and intimidating list of collaborators who participated in
the project. Carlos Bronzini also provided information not included in the books, which
is relevant for the project.

I couldn't believe that the effect I have performed and still perform is not described
anywhere, not in the original book, nor later in the Expanded Edition. A closer version
of what I perform (although entirely different) appears in Mathematical Recreations,
written by W.W.Rouse Ball and edited in 1892, where he describes an effect that had no
resemblance with the one I perform.

Having consulted with other friends and colleagues (and after carefully reading The
Impostress Princess Expanded book), I finally felt that the idea of sharing DIVINE could
become an exciting project to offer to our community. After all, I have performed the
effect thousands of times in hundreds of venues for almost forty years.

So here we are.

My intention with this project is to actualize the basic effect and bring new light to it.
Since I've decided to publish this work, every magician I talked to mentioned that they
hadn't seen any versions of the effect performed.
I believe I can offer a unique perspective, and at the same time, share several full
performances in different situations: live shows, TV presentations, and now Virtual
Shows. I will explain the method I use for those who are not familiar with the basics and
get into detail, revealing all of the subtleties that I'm sure will make this effect your next
closing piece, regardless of the kind of magician you are or the type of shows you do.

I believe that a project like this is rare. Sometimes we get the manuscript; some other
times, we get the performance; other times, we may receive a detailed video with
explanations. Very few times, we may see a professional magician or mentalist
performing, usually for a handpicked audience who knows exactly how to behave and
will help the magician to create the proper mood and excitement. We don't ever get to
receive all of the above in the same project or product. And it is my goal to provide each
one of you will all of that, together. I will let you judge if DIVINE is up to the challenge.

I hope that you will enjoy and perform DIVINE. With regular or Jumbo size unprepared
cards, even with borrowed cards, with an uncomplete deck, with a sub-standard deck,
surrounded by people in any distance, live or virtually, for as little as three spectators to
thousands of them.
There are magic effects that we can perform right out of the box or immediately after
reading them. DIVINE is not one of those effects; it belongs to that other group of magic
effects that depend on a strong and very well structured presentation and effective
audience management to become a real miracle.
Please give this great piece of theatre and magic and mentalism the respect it deserves,
working hard with it and putting all of the subtleties I will share with you (and the ones
y0u may come across in the process), and you will have a closer for any of your shows.
I'm confident to say: a show stopper.

See you soon.

- The effect

A few spectators freely choose some random cards from a shuffled (even borrowed)
deck. Each spectator selects and remembers one of their cards. Now the magician shows
some cards to everybody in the audience, and each person mentally selects and retains
a card. Cards are collected from the spectators, shuffled by the magician, and further
mixed by an audience member.
The magician takes a group of cards and shows them to the first group of spectators,
asking if they see their card in that group. The same action is repeated with various
groups of cards. Each time a spectator raises a hand, the magician puts the cards behind
his back, retrieves one of them, says whose card it is, but leaves it on the table, face
down, for a later revelation. In the end, the magician holds the cards one by one, asking
the corresponding person or group of people to name their card out loud. The magician
shows each card to reveal that he has divined every member of the audience's thoughts.

- The principle

For the sake of clarity in the explanations, I will invite four (4) spectators to select four
(4) cards each. I will call them spectators A, B, C and D, from my right to my left. I will
call their cards A1, A2, A3, A4; B1, B2, B3, B4; C1, C2, C3, C4, D1, D2, D3, D4.
The spectator who will help me shuffle the cards will be spectator E.

The effect relies on a mathematical combination based on the concepts of "matrix" and
"transposed (or inverted) matrix."
A matrix is a disposition of elements in rows and columns. Transpose those elements
means interchange the rows for the columns, and vice-versa. For example:

A= A1 B1 C1 D1 At = A1 A2 A3 A4
A2 B2 C2 D2 B1 B2 B3 B4
A3 B3 C3 D3 C1 C2 C3 C4
A4 B4 C4 D4 D1 D2 D3 D4

In the example, I made a 4 x 4 matrix, meaning four rows (the cards in each pile) by four
columns (the stacks). If I know in which stack is a card, I know the column. In the second
placement (the "shuffle" made by a spectator dictating where to put the cards), I'm
displaying each column as a row. If I know in which column is the same card, I will know
exactly where it is located. It will also work the other way around: knowing the column
first, and then knowing the row. It's the same thing.

Mathematically, we form a matrix with the cards to ask four spectators to select them
and later transpond them in the (false) shuffle. If we are told where each card is in each
step -saying the row first and the column second-, we have enough information to
localize a determined selection.

Another easy way to put it would be that spectator A takes cards A1, A2, A3, and A4.
Spectator B takes B1, B2, B3, and B4, spectator C takes C1, C2, C3, and C4, and spectator
D takes cards D1, D2, D3, and D4.

They select cards from their piles only. So I know that spectator A can only set an A card
with the following number. Spectator A can't choose B, or C, or D cards.
I collect the cards in order, without disturbing the position of each group. So, I end up
with a pack of 4 D cards on top, 4 C cards under those, 4 B cards under those, and 4 A
cards at the bottom.
When spectator E dictates how I should "shuffle" the cards, he helps me transpond the
matrix. Cards D1, D2, D3, and D4 will end up in the bottom of piles 1 or 2 or 3 or 4, cards
C1, C2, C3, and C4 will end up on top of each D card, cards B1, B2, B3, and B4 will be
third from the bottom in each pile, and cards A1, A2, A3, and A4 will end up at the top
of each stack.

At the end of this "shuffle," I will have, in each pile, only one card from each spectator.
Let's say, as an example: in the first pile (far left in my table); I will have, from top to
bottom: A2, B1, C1, D3. In the second pile (center left), I will have A4, B2, C3, D4. In the
third pile (center right), I will have A1, B3, C2 and D1, and in the fourth pile (far right) I
will have A3, B4, C4 and D2.
I now ask the spectator E to tell me which pile he wants me to pick up. I point, from left
to right, to each pile, and say "1, 2, 3, or 4?". IE, he says 3. I do as he requests. Now I ask
"Now which one should I pick up?" He says 1. I ask "Do you want me to put it over or
under the other one?" Whatever the answer, it is the same outcome. I ask him about the
third stack; he says 2, and for the fourth one, which is the 4.

I will now have an assembled deck with 16 cards. The audience assumes that it's
adequately shuffled. But instead, I have a perfectly ordered stack, with the following
cards (in the example), from top to bottom: A1, B3, C2, D1, A2, B1, C1, D3, A4, B2, C3,
D4, A3, B4, C4, D2.

The Method and Presentation:

For added clarity, I will select two women and two men. Spectator A will be a woman, B
will be a man, C will be a woman, D will be a man. E, the person who will help me shuffle,
will be a man.

You already saw the full performances, so we will get straight to the explanations.
You only need a complete (or incomplete) deck of cards. It can be absolutely any deck,
even an unprepared, unprofessional, sub-standard deck of cards.
Better still: you may choose to perform the effect with postcards of cities around the
world, cards with written or printed words, or names, or pictures of celebrities, or cars,
or monuments, or foods, or drinks, or brands, or vacation places, or any other list of
things or places or people you can imagine, as long as they are different in the faces and
exactly alike in their backs. This will serve an excellent purpose for themed events, or
corporate shows in which the client needs the magician to personalize the experience.

In the version I will explain, you will only use 16 cards. If you so choose, you can use as
little as nine cards (which I believe is too little), and as much as 25 cards (which I think is
a little too much). I have tried and performed the effect with 9, 16 and 25 cards, and the
effect is always strong. But I prefer 16.
In any case, I firmly believe that we must introduce the effect with the full deck, and give
the spectators the complete freedom to choose cards among an entire (or almost
complete) deck of cards. The experience becomes much stronger that way.

I will explain the effect and presentation as I perform it with a live audience, and add
comments or changes I make when I perform it on TV or in a Virtual Show. In the next
chapter of this project, I will talk about all the subtleties, nuances and details I add or
change or subtract in different kinds of shows.

I shuffle the deck myself before I begin with the effect. I say:
"As my master, René Lavand said: an international shuffle by the law of the game; as a
matter of professional hygiene".
You can choose to give the deck to a spectator to shuffle it, which will add strength to
the effect.

Once the cards are shuffled, I approach A -that must be seated far to my close right side
(row 1 or 2 at the most in a theatre)-, and ask her name. I may or may not make a
comment on it, or ask where she is from, or any other remark or question I came up with
at that moment. It's entirely irrelevant for the impact of the effect, but I would like to
point out that that first encounter and introduction will set the "mood" of the rest of
the interactions. I should take enough time with her (not too little, because it may seem
that I don't care about her, not too long, because it may kill the pace of the effect).

I ask her if she knows the cards well enough to identify and remember a specific card.
Let's suppose she says a convincing yes, then I offer the cards to her. If she hesitates, I
may explain the fundamental differences with the cards are. My necessary explanation
(which I use in other effects with cards), is as follows:

"It doesn't matter if you don't play games, we just need you to distinguish your card from
all the rest if you see it again. Cards come in two colours, Red and Black. Two red suits,
Hearts and Diamonds, and two black suits, Spades and Clubs. And then the values,
divided between numbers and letters. Numbers go from 2 to 10, and letters are the Aces,
Jacks, Queens and Kings."
I don't make a point of how many cards she must select; I don't name any numbers. I
add, as I offer the deck (opened in a spread between my hands), "please, select a bunch
of cards, so you have some options to choose from... try to select cards from different
places in the deck: one around the bottom, one around the top, make it random..."
I try not to stare at her nor the cards. I look at the audience and look casually at that
person to check how things are doing. Sometimes I let her take the four cards,
sometimes she grabs three at once, or two at once. The thing is, I can either let her take
four cards, or just three or five or six. I usually prefer the first person to take the four
needed cards, no more, no less. I will explain more about the quantities later.

I approach B. Also to the right of the room, but farther from the stage, and closer to the
centre aisle. I ask his name, comment something about him or not, ask a question or
not, and then say almost the same thing, "You need some cards to choose from, so select
one from there, another one from here... please be picky, take your time and change your
mind if you feel like doing it. Perfect, you are a great sport. I will let you choose a couple
more..."
In this case, most of the time, I let this person take more than four cards. Let's say five,
six or even seven cards. I must make clear (subtly) to the whole audience that I don't
care about the exact amount of cards each spectator gets, as long as they have enough
cards. The success of the whole effect depends on the ability to convey this message:
it's not a fixed quantity of cards, I don't care about how many cards they took.

I go to C. This person must be seated left from the centre aisle, also farther from the
stage, but in a different row than B. I try to make the spectator's selection a fun moment,
look at someone and say something like "too sceptic, can't participate", or "too naive,
hence too easy to read", or "you are an open book, I need someone harder to read", and
things like that. When I find C, I say almost the same thing: "Some cards for you too, but
please choose from different parts of the deck, make it difficult for me, be whimsical, get
wild..." People usually laugh at that remark. Laugh is great; I'm setting the mood for the
party that will start soon. I don't let this person take more than four cards. Anyway,
sometimes she may take more than four. If it happens, I usually hit her hand very softly,
like a mother with a child that took two cookies from the jar instead of one. I will say
"how vicious you are... it's never enough, for you, right?", and if there is a significant one
seating next to her, I would say "He nodded yes!" Another laugh.

Sometimes spectators take too long to select cards. I may say "take your time, we have
the whole night ahead of ourselves...", or "please hurry, the theatre charges me by the
minute...", or "if you take this long to pick some cards, I can't imagine how long does it
take to you to chose a boyfriend...", or any other light sassy comment. It has to be playful
and respectful.

Sometimes, spectators take several cards together, like 10, or 20 cards. I may say "oh...
greedy... ", or "Wait... what part of "a few" cards wasn't clear?"
All of these remarks must trigger a burst of spontaneous laughter in this person and the
whole audience. If it doesn't happen like that, it's because we may be missing the right
tone or connection with this person or with the audience.

You know yourself well enough to be aware if you are generally too invasive and harsh
with your comments and in your relationship with the audience, or if you are too solemn
and slow-paced, or maybe quick and witted. Please don't add pepper if you are already
spiced; slow down a little if you are too fast-paced. If you are sweet, don't get cloying.
It's not necessary to rush, nor to put the audience to sleep with your careful modulation.
You don't need to be over the top with your jokes; you don't need to over-explain things.
You don't have to be a vigilante, closely checking how many cards they are taking. You
just have to go through the cards selection with grace, to prevent the moment to
become tedious or chaotic.

Finally, to my far left and closer to the stage (rows 1 or 2; 1 if A was in 2, or 2 if A was in
1), I approach D. I ask if he knows the cards, if he can tell one from the other. If any of
the spectators say an explicit "no", I say "I need someone who knows the cards, I
apologize..." and search for someone else. D will take four cards. But, if B took more
than four, I will try D to take just three.

Now I go back to the stairs, or the centre of the stage space, and before I take the stairs
or approach my table (if there is no stage), I look at them, like a proud father looks at his
kids. And I say "Try to keep your cards close to your chest at all times, we don't want
anybody to spy on you, especially me. Look at your cards; you don't have to memorize
them, just let your attention wander through them, and let one of your cards invite you,
or kidnap your attention. That's your favourite card, the chosen one. Please remember
that card, commit to remembering its identity: colour, suit and value". And only then,
when they are looking at their cards, I act like I'm realizing something while looking to
the B, walk toward him and say "you look too confused, with all of those cards you
grabbed... give me back some of them, let me ease your burden..." and I get whatever
extra cards this person took, leaving him with just four. I don't say how many cards I
retrieved; I don't mention how many cards he should keep. I won't name numbers at all,
whenever possible. One of the essential secrets to the success of this effect: avoid saying
numbers out loud, unless strictly necessary.

These bits add to the impression of fairness and randomness about the amounts of cards
they took. In their perception, it wouldn't make any sense to let them take seven cards
if I need them to have precisely four. So, the audience will assume that the number of
cards was irrelevant for the outcome of the effect.

While I walk back to the centre, I look around the spectators and, acting like I just saw
something odd to my right, I look at D and say, "look at you, poor soul, who didn't even
take enough cards to choose from...". I approach and ask him to take one more, without
saying "take ONE more". I will say "Here, for you, get crazy", and I just softly and kindly
pat his shoulder and return to the stage.
So far, some people (4) took several cards (4 each) from a shuffled deck. Nobody knows
how many cards, and I act like I couldn't care less. This detail is CRUCIAL for the final
impact and, above all, for the last recollection of thoughts. The amount of cards each
person have is entirely irrelevant.

That MUST be a playful moment of the show. It's not a formal approach, where I rigidly
stand in front of each person like a statue and solemnly say "Take four cards". You need
to have fun and make sure they do too.

I say to them. "Once you have thought about your favourite card in your pile, please don't
take out that card, don't point at that card, don't move it from here to there, don't
whisper it to the person next to you. It's a very personal thought; it's your secret thought,
you deserve your privacy, it's just your secret card. Remember it, and please think of
nothing else, just remember the colour, the suit and the value of your card. Guard it in
your mind like your life depends on it."

Now, walking toward my table or bag or case, I say "I will get rid of all the cards you
didn't choose, so no one will suspect that spying on the cards that were left, I can know
which ones you do have..." I will abandon the rest of the deck, out of sight. I'm
"throwing" those cards to the trash.
I try to put the discarded cards far from my table.

And now, as I approach A to collect her cards, I ask all of them to shuffle their cards, "So
I can't know whether your card is more to the right, or left... shuffle them very well". At
this same time, I take the cards from A and, without looking at the cards, I do an
overhand shuffle with her cards, exemplifying to the rest how I want them to shuffle
theirs. I'm achieving nothing with this shuffle, so I don't pay any attention to my hands
or cards, and I just look at the other three spectators, making sure they are doing their
job right.

I walk toward B, and say "I'm gathering all of your cards too".

Now, before I take B cards, I stop and look around like I'm realizing something, and say,
to the rest of the audience: "Oh... you wanted to participate... and you too, wanted to
have your thought of card... all right, I will try to divine the thoughts of all of you..." and
I open the four cards in a fan, and show the cards to all of them. And I repeat (while
turning my body and hands so everybody can see the cards): "Please just think of one of
these cards, and please forget the rest. Repeat that card over and over again, to embed
it deeply in your mind, please remember that secret card that nobody but you knows."

At the beginning of the effect, coming from a previous one where I divine one thought-
of-card, I say "A lot of you may be thinking: "If he made ME think of a card, he wouldn't
have been able to read my mind, I'm not that easy...", so I will read the minds of each
one of you now, how about that?"

At the beginning of the effect, I need to convey the idea that some people will participate
in the following effect, not necessarily all of them. Before retrieving the cards from B, I
suddenly turn to the audience, and I act as I have just decided to be bold and try to read
everybody's minds. It should seem like a sudden desire that I'm feeling just now, seeing
that some people may be disappointed for not being able to participate. The more
improvised this goes across, the better.

If I'm in a TV set or Virtual Show, I look away from any monitors and make a point out of
it. If I'm in a virtual show, I must look at the floor, and make a point of it. "I don't want
to look at you, or the cards, or a monitor, or an assistant. I must not see the cards at any
given moment".
So, whether it is a live show, or a TV or a virtual show, 100% of the audience will choose
a card among the four A's cards.
I ask "Do all of you have your card embedded in your mind?".

Now I take the cards from B.

I place these four cards on top of the A's cards.
Now, I walk toward C, and as I walk, I false (overhand) shuffle the eight cards (A's and
B's) maintaining the separation between the two groups. I may change the order of the
four B's cards, but I won't mix the two groups. Cards from B must remain at the top of
the pack of 8 cards that I now have in my hands. The shuffle happens while I walk, I keep
the cards at chest level, to the right side of my body, so the audience see the back of the
cards, not the faces, which are not changing. I do this casually and without looking at
the cards. I'm concerned with C, and with the rest of the audience.

I go to C and ask for her cards. I put them on top of the pack, and while walking towards
D, I false (overhand) shuffle these cards maintaining the separation between the three
groups (A's, B's and C's).

So far, I have 12 cards in my hands. From top to bottom, I have the four cards from C,
then the four cards from B, then the four cards from A.

I repeat the same thing with D. Pick up his cards, put them on top, false shuffle (without
looking at the cards), maintain the groups separated, while I walk back to centre stage.

I now have the 16 cards.

From top to bottom: 4 D's cards, followed by 4 C's cards, then the 4 B's cards, and the 4
A's cards. Everybody in the audience must believe that the cards are shuffled and that I
have no control. Or, at least, they must feel that I didn't make any efforts to control
anything, and that I don't care. Cards must not matter too much or not matter at all.

This effect is NOT about the cards. It is about the audience and their secret thoughts.

I stand next to my table, while I'm still (false) shuffling the cards, without looking at my
hands. I say "Please, please, please. Don't share your secret thought, don't say your card
to your neighbour, remember it, don't get distracted, don't think about anything else".

"Now we will shuffle even more. But I'm not going to do it myself. Sir, please, from your
seat, help me shuffling the cards. I will make some piles here on the table. Let's say this
is pile one, this is two, this is three, and this is four (I point to four spots in my table, from
left to right). I will put the cards as you dictate me, for example, "three, one, two, four;
two, one, three, four; one, four, three, two; four, three, one, two... You must remember
what I just have said, and repeat the same order because otherwise, you will ruin the
whole thing..."

People laugh here. This bit provides psychological misdirection. I'm telling them
something ridiculous, which is related to an order and control that I need for this effect
to work. Immediately after saying it, I smile and say, "it was a joke... relax... you can say
anything you want, just not two, two, two, two, because then the cards won't get
shuffled at all..."

Here I provide another false lead. I'm asking them to get crazy and to avoid anything
that may seem helpful to maintain control. By doing this, I'm saying "I don't care, I want
you to shuffle the cards as much as you can".

I add, "The rest of you, please remember your card; repeat it again and again in your
mind, we are almost there".
This request serves the purpose of giving everybody something to think about, while I
supposedly shuffle the cards. I need such taks to keep them distracted from the next
step, because it's the weakest spot of this effect. If they are concerned about
remembering their cards, they won't be able to focus on what I will do next.
But, to further help myself to achieve this goal, I must go through the next step very
lightly and casually, without paying too much attention to the shuffle, like I'm letting the
cards to get lost and being okay with it. I need to find a way to have fun with the
spectator that will shuffle the cards for me. I need him to have fun too. There are some
aids during this shuffle that will help achieving it.

The man will say "three, two, one, four; two, three, four, one, three, four, one two, one,
three, two, four..." and I will place the cards wherever he dictates, taking care that he
dictates four different numbers for each of the four groups of cards I have in my hands.
I must place four cards in different piles, another four cards in different piles above the
other ones, four more cards on top of those, and four more cards on top of those. This
must be done without a pause after each group. This way, the audience will perceive
this step as one single action of shuffling all of the cards together.

Some men will dictate at a languid pace. If I feel, within the first two or three cards, that
he is too slow, I may say "Please get going, we have to finish tonight...", or whatever
other light and playful comment that will let the man know that we need to do this
faster.

This shuffle is the critical moment to the workings of this effect: making four piles, I will
put one card from D in each stack, one card from C in each pile above, one card from B
in each pile above, and one card from A in each pile on top of the rest.
Whatever piles he chooses for each card of each group is precisely the same, as long as
in each pile I end up with 1 card from A on top, followed with 1 card from B, followed
with 1 card from C, followed by 1 card from D.
On the table, I now have four piles of 4 cards each. Each of the four piles is structured
the same way: all of them have one card from each spectator, in the same position: all
of the top cards belong to A, all of the second cards belong to B, all of the third cards
belong to C, and all of the bottom cards belong to D.

Now I have to gather all of the piles to form one big deck again, and I must do this
without pausing too long after the shuffle, saying "I will now gather all of the cards, in
any order you want. Tell me which pile to pick up, please..." Whatever he says, I pick up.
"Now which one?" Whatever he says, I pick up and ask: "On top or bottom of the other
one?" Whatever he says I do, and I continue until I have all of the cards together again
in my hands.

Recap:
Now I have the 16 cards in one pile. For the audience, the cards are wholly shuffled and
lost, and no one could know where and which are the cards from each spectator. But I
know precisely where and which are the cards of each one.
From top to bottom I have 1 Card from A, 1 Card from B, 1 Card from C, 1 Card from D,
1 Card from A, 1 Card from B, 1 Card from C, and so on.

I say (immediately after finishing the shuffle): "I believe we can all agree that I don't have
a clue about which cards are here (pointing at the pile at hand) or there (pointing at the
remains of the deck, wherever I left it); I also don't have any idea about which cards each
one of you had in your hands, or about where are those cards, and I have even a lesser
clue of which cards you thought of, let alone the rest of the audience. I shuffled the cards
before, during, and after, and the gentleman shuffled them even more."

One of the many great things about this effect is that most of what I have just said is
true. I don't know, and I don't care, which cards were selected and which cards were
not; I don't care about the identity of the cards in play or the chosen ones. I ONLY care
about the POSITION of the cards in the deck I have in my hands. The identity of the cards
will be unknown to me until the end of the effect. And that's one of the biggest strengths
of this effect, not knowing and not caring about those things. We must make the most
from those details: they merely thought of the cards; the cards were shuffled several
times with a complete lack of control and care.

Recap for the audience:

This is what I say (with these precise words or with little changes).

"Whenever you suddenly start to wonder how THAT happened, please remember that
we shuffled the cards before we started, you choose any cards you wanted, you all
thought of cards that exist ONLY in your minds and nobody in the world could know,
that I don't even know which cards are here and which cards are in the box, I have no
idea which cards you held in your hands, and the gentleman made sure that the cards
were shuffled again. I have no clue, how could I?"

This is what I know now:

A's chosen card can be any of the following cards (from top to bottom):
1, 5, 9 or 13.
B's chosen card can be any of the following cards: 2, 6, 10 or 14.
C's card can be any of the following cards: 3, 7, 11 or 15.
And D's card can be any of the remaining cards: 4, 8, 12 or 16.
The rest of the audience could have chosen (only) the following cards: 1, 5, 9 or 13, along
with A.

That's all I need to know. And one more piece of information that the spectators will
give away in the next step, without even noticing.

I say "Now comes the moment of truth", as I take a few cards (precisely four cards) from
the top, to show them to the audience.
But, instead of taking the four top cards from the pack, I will take the top two cards, and
then two more cards on top of the first two. By doing this, I change the order of these
four cards. From top to bottom of this pack of 4 cards, instead of having A, B, C, D, I will
have C, D, A, B. I change the order because now I will fan these four cards and show
them to the audience, and repeat that display four times. I want each person to see
his/her card in a different position each time. Otherwise, A will always sea a card from
her group first to the left of my fan. I have to show them four piles, there is one card
from each of them in each pile, and I want those cards to be in different places in each
fan.

After seeing my performance of this effect, and after I mentioned that I do what I have
just described, a couple of colleagues said that I'm crazy. They said that no spectator
could recall the cards they didn't choose, let alone track the position of each of their
cards in the fans I'm showing to them. They can barely remember one card; they can't
remember, nor accurately follow the rest.
But, I still do what I described above, just in case, especially if it is a TV show that may
be recorded and uploaded to YouTube later.

So, I ask the spectators, from right to left (starting with A): "Do you see your selected
card here? " I have to remember each answer. I ask the four spectators. And then I go
back to the right side of the audience, and fan the cards again asking the rest of them:
"If you see your card here, please raise your hand".
There will be plenty of hands raised. I act surprised by the quantity like it is too many
people and I didn't expect so many. I say "Wow, a lot of you..."

I immediately put the four cards behind my back (holding them with my left hand) and
say "I won't even look at the cards..."
Now, let's suppose that B and D said yes, and a dozen people raised their hands.
I will grab the top card with my right hand (C's card), bring that card to the front, and
without looking at it, I say "I know this card belongs to nobody, so I will discard it", and I
throw that card away. Not literally throw, but discard that card to wherever box, case or
receptacle you have close to you. Those discarded cards must disappear forever, from
the audience's point of view, so just make sure those cards can't be seen nor spotted
anymore.
I immediately put my right hand behind my back, change the grip of the remaining cards
to my right hand, and take the top card with my left hand, bring it to the front, and direct
my attention to D: "David, this is, without a doubt, your card; I will leave it face down
here on the table, closer to you, for a little while, adding a little suspense to the
experience".
I immediately put my left hand behind my back, change the grip of the two remaining
cards to my left hand, and I take the bottom card with my right hand. I bring that card
to the front, saying to B: "Ben, his is your card. I will leave it face down here, on the table,
close to you, for a second. Please don't take your eyes away from it".
And I immediately bring the last card to the front and say "Believe it or not -because it's
strange-, this card belongs to each one of you, the ones who raised your hands. Please
raise your hands again... All of you, please name your card out loud now".
All of them will name the same card. I show the card to them. It is the first revelation.

They will probably burst into big applause. I don't linger in it. I must carry on, and I let
them know, by saying "Wait, because it may have been a stroke of luck -if such thing
exists-, but there are many other chosen cards and thoughts left to find, so let's keep
going".
This bit is important. Usually, mentalists take credit even for little things they do, divine,
guess, say. Here I'm doing precisely the opposite: I ask the audience to dismiss my
achievement, or at least to hold on to the acknowledgement of it until later. That creates
tension, and grow expectation, all of which will help to the climax at the final revelations.
This behavior of mine will also let the audience know that there are more impressive
things to come, that this was a tiny bit of mystery. They will react in tune to this, if I play
it convincingly.

I take the next four cards, in one pile, as they are. From top to bottom: A, B, C and D. I
spread the cards in a fan and show it to them and to the audience, as I did before.

Let's suppose none of the four spectators say they see their card among these cards,
and there are some hands in the air. I don't put the cards behind my back. I "mix" the
cards, making sure I control A's card (the top card) to the third position from the top.

If it is a live show, I open a fan (top card to the right) and I approach a spectator to my
left (a woman, if possible), who raised her hand and ask her to touch the back of one of
these cards and keep her finger on that card.
I will force the selected card to her. 98% of the time, she will touch the second card from
the bottom. Not the closest card, but the second one.
If she touches that card, I will immediately say, "Please grab that card and press it
against your chest, without looking at it. That card is not only yours; it's the card of all of
them, the ones who raised their hands along with you. Please (to all), remember that
your card is secure against her chest. I will be back to you in a moment".

There is no real need to take this risk. There is no need to make a person touch the cards,
and there is no need to force a card here. I do it because I tried once, it worked like a
charm, people went crazy when the woman showed the card, and I felt that it was a
great way to make the effect even more impressive.
But you can, as well, put the cards behind your back, discard the three cards from the
bottom, and bring back one card, ask all of the people who raised their hands to name
their cards out loud, and show it. It's strong enough by itself, without the forcing.
However, I prefer the forcing way.

I take the third pile of "some" (4) cards. This time I pick them up one by one, reversing
their order. So, instead of having, from top to bottom, A, B, C, D; I will have D, C, B, A.
Again, this is not necessary, but it's preferable.

Show them to the four spectators, and then to the rest of the audience. Let's suppose
that A raises her hand, along with many others. I put the cards behind my back, hold
them with the left hand, bring one indifferent card to the front with the right hand, and
say "This card belongs to nobody", and discard it. Go back to my back, change the grip
of the cards to the right hand, take another indifferent card with the left, bring it to the
front and say "This card... I'm not sure. Raise your hands again, please..."
I carefully look at them, evaluating the combination of hands in the air, and after a
couple of seconds, I say "No, this card isn't right, it doesn't belong to any of you", and
discard it too.
Go back to my back, change the grip to the left hand, take another indifferent card to
the front, say "This one does not belong to any of you", and discard it.
And finally, bring the last card to the front and say "So, strangely, this card is not only
yours Anne (A), but it also belongs to all of you. Raise your hands again. All of you, please
remember that your card is the same as Anna's, I will leave it here, face down, close to
her, for a second."

I take the rest of the cards (4), two by two, to create the same order of the second pile
I took (from top to bottom C, D, A, B), point to C and say "Evidently, your card must be
here, along with the cards of many of you who didn't see your cards yet, and hence you
didn't raise your hands. Who are you? Please raise your hands now". The rest of the
audience will raise their hands. I put the cards behind my back, hold them with my left
hand, take out the bottom card with my right, bring it to the front, and say "This card
belongs to nobody, I will discard it", and do so. Go back with my right hand to my back,
change the grip of the cards, take the top card with my left hand and bring it to the front.
"this card belongs to you, Carmen (C), so I will leave it on the table, face down, close to
you".

I change the grip to my left hand, I take the top card with my right hand, bring it to the
front, and say "This card does not belong to anybody, so I discard it". And, I immediately
bring forward the last card with my left hand, and ask the audience: "Those of you who
have never raised your hands -because you have not yet seen your card-, please raise
your hands now. Excellent, please name your card out loud". They name their card; I
show it. It matches.

Now for the big finale.

I ask D to name his card out loud. He calls it, I turn it and show it. I immediately ask C to
name her card. She names, I show it. Without a pause, I ask B which card he selected;
he names it, I show it. I almost run to the woman in the first row. She is holding her card
against her chest. I ask her and all of the people who chose that card to name it. They
call the card out loud. I ask her to show it.
If there wasn't any applause in the previous revelations, here usually big applause will
burst. If there was applause before, in any of the revelations, I ask them to hold it. I may
even say something like: "Please wait, it could have been a coincidence, there are many
other cards we must find".
Now, after the first-row woman, I rush to my table, grab the last card, and ask A and the
remaining spectators to name their card out loud. They all scream the same card; I show
the last one.

Ovation.
¿Standing? It will depend on you.

And it will depend, in certain ways, on them too. Because the pace of E's dictation, the
mood of the four spectators, the fluidity of the selections, their responses to your wit
and remarks, and whatever bond you and them have created before and during this
effect, will affect the outcome. It will always be great, but sometimes it will be even
greater.

Please understand that this presentation and handling I have just provided is designed
for a live show with more than (let's say) 20 people. The energy of the room, the size of
the audience, the size of the room, the distance between the stage (if there is one) and
the seats, the length of the whole show, the fact that the audience paid for their tickets
or they were invited by a company or host, the fact that they knew you before this show
or you were a complete stranger and they just met you, the fact that you came in fourth
to the stage after other three magic acts, the fact that they loved magic before this show
or they weren't exposed to any magic shows before, the fact that it's late at night and
they are tired and hence their attention span is shorter than, lets say, an afternoon
show, the fact that there are many children in the audience, the fact that there are many
elder people in the audience, the fact that you are tired, or insecure, or didn't practise
enough, or are too taken by the math of the effect and you are trying too hard to keep
track of each card in each pile... all of that will influence the outcome and the pace and
development of the "texture" and "music" of this effect.

I believe that any effect that involves the participation of several or all members from
the audience are complex effects, and all of them, though simple in method, will be very
difficult to master when it comes to properly handling the audience. This is one of those
complex effects, beyond the simple and almost obvious method. I believe there are two
difficulties added together: the management of the audience (make the effect alive and
fun for them), and the management of the presentation (to achieve the mystery without
suspicion of the explanation).
I believe (along with many famous magicians and mentalists), that this is one of the most
potent and impressive effects for any audience of any size, at any given time, in any
given platform.
I'm sure that the hard work that it needs to work correctly is worth the investment, and
I have tried and tested it beyond enough times to have proven it so.

Please keep reading, and pay special attention to the next chapter, where I will share
some insights, tips, subtleties, ideas, to make the effect even more amazing. I will speak
generally, and then I will cover three main environments separately: Virtual Shows, TV
Shows and Live Shows. I believe there are specific nuances to each one of them that I
will mention in each chapter.

- Beyond the Method

- I use Jumbo Cards as much as I can. Even if I'm performing a small show for thirty
guests. I have a Jumbo Deck that has four indexes, instead of two (you can see it in the
performance videos). These decks are not easy to find, but not difficult either. This will
serve the purpose of avoiding confusion, when they see the cards in a fan, from a certain
distance, and it will release you from the tension of remembering how to open the fan
or hold the cards. Jumbo cards, especially with four indexes, will show clearly to
everybody, regardless of how open or closed is the fan, how close or far is the audience,
how big are your hands and how you hold the cards. Cameras and lights are tricky on
the white cards, people at home in virtual or TV shows are looking through the mobile
device, or are too far from the screen, so Jumbo cards are a safer way to present this
effect.

- I only use regular sized cards when it's an informal situation when I have to borrow a
deck when I have to improvise a show in an informal gathering, where maybe I'm not
hired but invited, and someone asks me to perform, and I feel like it. I will also use
regular sized cards when I perform for a very small group, of a dozen guests or less. It
would be also wise to use regular sized cards if you perform a complete show or a section
of a show with the same deck of cards (even if you make a deck switch). I will bring out
a regular deck, if I have one, or ask for one, and I will perform some magic, including
DIVINE. It should be a small space, with no more than twelve to twenty guests, seating
very close to me, or surrounding me, so then I know that everybody will be able to see
the cards. For any other kind of shows, I use Jumbo Cards.

- I have mentioned this before, but I believe it's worth mentioning it again: the magician
who taught me this effect only carried sixteen cards with him to the shows. The reason,
even though it's hard to believe, was plain laziness. He didn't want to carry the weight
of a full Jumbo Deck; he didn't want to go through the whole selection process. He just
shuffled the cards and gave them to the four spectators, didn't even let them choose
the cards. I believed back then and still believe that that's a huge mistake. It weakens
the effect, but above all it takes a lot of fun from it, making it too straightforward and
flat. I can't stress enough the importance of starting with the full deck and letting them
chose among all of the available options in it.
- Mathematical effects are square, structured and rigid. Gray, flat, like a military
marching band parade. That's how any mathematical effect will appear to the audience,
any audience, if we don't take the time and put the work needed to change its shape,
loosen it up, give it texture, make it playful, and fun to watch and participate. I have
shown you the boldest expression I could get with it, but by no means I believe that I
have achieved the best possible impact with the effect. I feel that there is still more to
squeeze from it and that it will just take more work, more thinking, more collaborating.
Please don't let this effect die in your hands, by presenting it too soon, or disregarding
some of the things I have shared that may seem unimportant or dumb; they are far from
any of that. I have performed this effect for almost forty years in thousands of different
shows, and believe me when I say (once again) that the effect became more and more
potent as I worked harder and harder in the presentation. Please do the same. Magicians
tend to be very lazy at the time of putting effort and discipline in their work, because
the effects are, in general, already powerful as they come right out the box. That's the
basic amazement we can provide, but the real joy, emotion and mystery come later
when we add the actual hard work to the basic puzzle.

- Since I have learned this effect so early in my life, being just a kid, back then it would
never occur to me that I could change the method. I didn't have the tools to come up
with a better, or more subtle way to present this effect. I didn't consider anything like
that, with any effect I knew. The only way for me to make an effect better for an
audience was to perform it better. Some effects were already great, and there were
others, like this one, that required a lot of work.

In The Impostress Princess, I have read about many scholars, creators, great magicians
who came up with different methods and substantial changes for the effect. I didn't find
a better way to perform this effect than the one I have used for my whole career.

I applaud those who have such knowledge that allows them to improve methods, but I
am, above all, a performer, so I have spent my life improving the presentation of the
effects I perform. That's quite a different approach to the matter. I'm not so concerned
about coming up with new methods (unless in certain specific occasions), but about
coming up with new subtleties to add to the beauty of the performance.

If you are a violinist, and you receive a music sheet with a Mozart's Violin Concerto, and
you find that there is a passage that it's too complicated, or that you simply don't like,
you don't change the music sheet. You just can't do that. You can't even change a note.
You have to respect the music sheet to the tiniest detail, and in any case become a better
performer, a better artist, to make the concert even better than it already is, or at least
to make justice to it. You have to find the heart and soul of the composer; understand
why he selected those notes or combinations, and find your way to make all of that
yours, almost to the point where you feel that you created it. When you perform, your
audiences should feel, at least for a moment, that they are listening to the creator and
the interpreter as one person, as one soul.
There is such thing as the art of the interpretation. The performing arts are mostly about
that. We, magicians and mentalists, are performers (or should be).
Students, scholars, judges, critics, inventors, writers, mentors and instructors are
something else. They may also be performers, but they are programmed differently
from plain interpreters, they think on different rules, they tic with another clock.

After having studied all of the versions and having tried many of them, I (along with a
few very talented colleagues) can assure that this version I present to you is one of the
most powerful (if not THE most powerful) of all. Before you change the method once
more, please put enough hard work to it, and see what happens. Then you will have
time to ruin this method and effect, and make it one more of the versions that no one
ever-present, because their genius methods are only excellent in their heads, but not so
great in the real theatres with real audiences. There are smart ideas and tips in The
Impostress Princess, most of which will add not too much value to the effect, most of
which will make the effect too complicated or contaminated to justify the changes, if we
consider the recipients of it, which are our audiences.

But, once again, maybe it's just me. And perhaps it's only the three or four consultants I
have talked to, who have also read the book and said that the one I'm presenting here
is among the best if not the best of all.

Please allow me for one more digression.

I don't eat sushi with Philadelphia cheese nor with modern Peruvian-Vietnamese fusion
sauces on top of the rolls. I don't eat Kobe meat sushi; I don't eat sushi with mango, or
passion fruit sauce in it. I don't eat 30 pieces of sushi in the same meal. I don't ask for
extra dressings or spicy mayonnaise to "decorate" my rolls.

I believe in simplicity, and I think that the real secret of great sushi is in the traditional
and careful preparation of the rice, and the quality and freshness of the fish on top of it.
Nothing else is needed. Jiro Ono (owner of the 3 Star Michelin tiny sushi restaurant in a
subway metro station, in Tokyo) says that we must never submerge sushi pieces in soy
sauce, and the soy sauce should never touch the rice. One must take a piece of gari
(pickled ginger) with the sticks, wet the gari in the soy sauce, and paint the fish with it.
That's it.

All of the rest, ALL of the rest, are unnecessary modifications of a straightforward,
ancient, beautiful, poetic, exquisite, extraordinary thing: a small ball of rice, with a thin
slice of excellent quality fish on top, with a paintbrush of soy sauce (or Jiro's secret
formula for the soy sauce) on top.

I believe that many magicians did to the experience of magic what most sushi
restaurants did to the experience of sushi. Complicated it. Weakened it. Ruined it.

Unfortunately, it seems that this is what happened to The Impostress Princess. I think
that, if you are not careful enough, you will end up doing the same thing to it again.
And, like in the sushi metaphor, your pieces will fall apart.
- One of the things that gave me the best results, is understanding that I must add several
gestures of lack of control to the presentation: change the course of the effect, change
my mind on the spot, even change a card at the last moment before revealing it.
When credibly conveyed, all of that will give the impression of flexibility, which a
mathematical effect would not allow.
For example: When I'm arriving at the third group of cards, after a couple of spectators
already said they saw their cards among the ones I showed to them, I put the cards
behind my back and hesitate, before bringing to the front the card that, let's say, C said
she saw in this group. I may even bring forward a different card, one that does not
belong to anybody. I will say "I believe this is your card", but before leaving that card on
the table for the revealing at the end, I look at her, I frown for a moment, and I say as if
I feel that something is off, "Wait... something doesn't feel right about this card... this
can't be your card. Don't say it out loud, but look at this card and tell me that I'm right,
this is not your card..." I show her the card, she nods and says that it's not her card. I
push it away.
These are the things that will convince the audience that I'm struggling with something
bigger and more complex than a simple mathematical trick. By bringing forward a card
that is not the selected one, I prove that I'm groping in the dark. That couldn't happen if
this were a mathematical effect, which is clear it's not (wink).

- In one of the videos, from "Hacete de Oliva" TV Show (included in this project), the four
spectators that will select cards are standing next to me, in a very tight group. This
setting is completely normal for TV shows because the hosts/guests must fit inside of
the screen in a general take. In these situations, I can't widen the spread of people who
will choose cards, but it has an advantage that you can appreciate in the performance:
I'm letting two or three spectators take cards at the same time. As I'm not saying how
many cards they have to take, I'm setting up that chaos I spoke about before. I'm having
fun with Laura (the hostess), and making jokes about the members of the band, while
they are taking the cards. I'm closely supervising what they are doing, but if you pay
attention to the video, you will see that it's not apparent at all. In fact, at the end of the
selection process, I go back to her, and ask her "Did you take enough cards?". I do this
in purpose, a line that establishes the fact that I don't know and that I don't care how
many cards each person has. She replies with the question "Do you want me to take
more?". And I dismiss the question and carry on with the process. There are many things
we can do and say to establish the lack of control, but it's mandatory to say and do such
things, because otherwise, the audience may suspect there is, in fact, a controlled
process.

- In the other video, from "Pura Química" TV show ("Pure Chemistry", also included), I
ask the first spectator to take "a couple of cards". Then I go to the fourth spectator and
say "take some cards from here and there, and (addressing the third spectator, say) you
too, please take some cards for yourself". Then I ask Luli (the producer) to take some
cards. After they all have some cards, I act like I feel that they don't have enough choices,
so I go back to Mex (the first spectator) and ask him to take some more and let the other
two hosts do the same. This is another "convincer", that conveys the idea of lack of
control and lack of attention to the quantities. I'm concerned about giving them choices,
and I'm worried about them taking cards from different parts of the deck.
By a series of actions, I'm subtly conveying that this cannot be a mathematical effect.
• I allow them to take any amount of cards.
• I let them dictate the shuffle.
• I will enable them to give back some cards, or add more cards to their packages.
• I change a card for another one, at the moment of revealing it.
• I shuffle the cards myself without even looking at them.
• I play cool at every moment of the effect, not controlling every step.

I suggest that you find your bits to condiment the effect, but there must be some of
those during the presentation because, otherwise, the mathematical "flavour" will be
too obvious not to perceive it.

- Another thing that gave me results is seemingly losing control at some points in the
effect. A few moments where I seem to get lost; in which I'm not quite sure what I'm
doing or what's happening. DIVINE is an effect that requires strict control over all of its
steps, so I suggest finding some spots where it does not appear to be any controlling
behaviour. That alone will payback.

The great Tommy Wonder said, in a lecture here in Buenos Aires, that magicians should
put together their repertoires with effects in which the secret is hidden even for the
magician presenting them. He explained that there are effects in which the secret is in
plain sight from the perspective of the performer, and other effects in which the secret
is hidden. In the latter effects, the magician can see and enjoy along with the audience.
The Linking Rings is an example of the former because the performer sees the critical
key ring all the time. Effects based on the Gilbreath Principle are an example of the
latter. No matter how the performer shuffles the cards, they end up in the correct order
for the effect to work. I perform an effect using that principle, and I'm amazed every
time I do it. Tommy Wonder said that we should always choose these effects because
our amazement and enjoyment will be conveyed to the audience, even if we don't do
anything to achieve that. In this effect, something similar happens: The performer does
not know the identity of any of the cards. At the moment of displaying the shuffled cards
to each spectator and asking about their cards, the performer doesn't know which of
those cards are the ones selected or the indifferent cards. This must play in our
advantage, and we must make the most of it, conveying that confusion, lack of control,
lack of interest in controlling any step of the experience. At the moment of truth, when
many spectators raise their hands and name only one card out loud in unison, the
performer looks at the card at hand, and suddenly sees the coincidence, for the first
time. There are about seven moments like that in this effect. Those moments are
exhilarating, and we should let that excitement get noticed because it will add credibility
and excitement to the effect as a whole.

However, I believe that we shouldn't over do it. I don't think that acting surprised like
we don't have any idea how this or that could happen is not the best way to convey the
magician archetipe to any audience. My belief is that magicians don't own the magic.
We can't quite decide every detail of every thing we do. But we know, mostly, how magic
usually work, and we know, by experience, that if we respect the rules and we act
humbly, magic will probably happen the way it should.
We can still feel the awe, when magic happens, each and every time, because the
magical moment is always magical. If we are sensitive people, we must be somehow
thrilled with the little miracles we offer.
Finding that equilibrium is an art, related to theatre, but before we step on stage and
rehearse our acting, we should have a clear understanding on who we are and what we
do there, for them (the audience). Then, it would be much easier to act in a determined
way. Acting can't be great if we have to act something we don't even believe in, or don't
connect with, unless we are extraordinary actors. But it's just my two cents on the
matter.

- To be able to present the effects in my Virtual Shows, I had to change the selection
process. I considered different options, and I came up with two acceptable solutions.
Both of them seem to work seamlessly, one of them being longer but more playful than
the other.

I ask each of the four spectators to think of some random numbers, from 1 to 52,
preferably small ones. I ask A to tell me those numbers, starting with the smaller one,
and growing to the larger number, as I count to those cads in the shuffled deck. I offer
an example: "For example, you could say 2, 7, 12, 23". The four spectators say their
numbers out loud, and I make the four piles with those cards, one pile for each of them.

If I'm working with regular-sized-cards, I can open a horizontal spread on the table, and
say that I will move my index finger over the spread until they say "stop". Whenever
they stop me, I will take out the card closest to my finger. I believe this option is good,
but I prefer the former one.

The option with the calling out numbers helps to achieve something relevant for this
effect: we are using numbers, but for something that is not mathematical. This way, the
audience may remember that I have asked some people to call out numbers, but they
will also remember that the only reason for that was to select random cards. Those
numbers, associated with the idea of randomness, is a combination that will take away
the suspicion of a mathematical principle playing a part in the effect.

- Magicians who talk don't usually consider music as an aid in their performances,
besides using it to "disguise dead time" when they need it.
I believe that music can help accomplish several essential things in our performances.
The most important thing, for me, is setting the mood and pace of certain effects. DIVINE
is one of those effects that can improve with music. But, I don't necessarily mean using
music during the performance. In this particular case, the rhythmic aspect of music is
what we need, to help us walk through this effect in a harmonious cadence. Since this is
a prolonged effect, the tendency will be that we will lose the pace, change it many times
during the effect, mostly there where the "moves" happen. Change of pace usually will
gives away our secrets in many situations. We tend to get tense when we approach the
weak spots of our effects and routines, and we overcompensate that tension by over-
acting our moves. We suddenly rush, or slow down too much, or make a gesture with
our forehead, or get defensive and raise the voice a little too much.

I use music to rehearse. I try to find a piece of music that inspires me, preferably
instrumental, with a certain rhythm that will drive me through the effect. I practice a lot,
always hearing that piece. With repetition, I will incorporate the rhythm, and then, in
performance, I will subconsciously move within that cadence without thinking about it.
I believe that each effect we perform should feel like a dance, a spontaneous celebration
around the fire, in a starry night close to the ocean or the woods.

Another way of seeing it is to imagine a baby falling asleep while we softly rock the crib.
Hypnosis works like that, inviting the subject to breathe in a certain cadence, and
perceive the rocking chair movement inside, to fall in a deep state of trance.

Sometimes I use the music piece during the effect, and sometimes I don't. But what's
important is that I have acquired a subconscious musical base driving my performance,
like a metronome, helping me keep everything tied together, consistent and neat,
without perceivable bumps in the awkward moments of trickery.

- The final revelation of the four cards along with the "most important card" (supposedly
the one selected by most of the audience members), is compelling. But it is also essential
to grow the energy from the previous revelations, for the final impact to be the strongest
possible. So, after each revelation (cards chosen by the regular audience while I separate
the face down selected cards by the four main spectators), I raise my voice over the
applause and say something like: "Please, let's continue because we need to divine more
thoughts!". Or "What a beautiful coincidence! Let's see if we can be even luckier with the
rest of you..."

Whatever phrase you may come up with will be all right, as long as it helps in raising the
excitement about what's left to happen in the end. We have three impactful moments,
in which people will scream cards, and you will show them those cards for a very magical
revelation. Each one of those revelations is powerful enough (even stronger than many
magical effects we usually perform). Still, they need to know that you are warming up
with them because you are driving them toward a more significant and impressive
ending.

The three warming-up revelations must be the bridge we must cross to arrive at the
Promised Land. So, like a bus that stops two or three times to refuel and allow the
passengers to stretch their legs, refresh and purchase a beverage, those moments
should be acknowledged, but briefly. Those stops are not places to relax, nor stay. We
don't get to enjoy the glory there; we don't get naked and run into the close ocean, nor
do we lay at the sun to tan our skin. We don't take people to check the surroundings,
even if there are beautiful things to see, because we may lose them there and we need
to go on, to the beautiful things awaiting for us in our destination.
- In the end, the four revelations must feel like just one, unique, decisive moment.
Imagine four gunshots fired at the same person without breathing or thinking between
them. We are not killing four different people; we are shooting at one.

Raising the voice in each card is the right way of increasing energy. But I can only
generalize here because you should do what your character needs. Maybe, in your case,
it would be lowering your voice; I can't help you there. It would be best if you evaluate
what you need by understanding what usually works for you.

- I believe it's important to understand what will be your role in this effect (and in every
effect you present). Are you revealing the cards or the cards reveal themselves to you?
Do you know things? Do you have the ability to read their minds? Are you surprised by
the fact that you knew? Do you feel lucky? Are you in control of the situation or you are
another witness of what's happening? Are you excited or just confused?

As I mentioned before, there are many questions we must ask ourselves, and most of
the time we ask ourselves too few. That way, in many shows that I have witnessed, I see
different personalities and energies in a single performance. Maybe one or two of them
are sympathetic with the performer and with each other, but most of those energies will
conflict and fight, distracting the audience from the message and the experience.

This effect is definitely not one of those magical demonstrations in which the performer
shows how great he/she is and how many cool things he/she can do. I believe that
DIVINE could be a celebration of mystery; a community-shared experience in which all
of the participants enjoy the "vibe", the feeling that we all are just one soul: little puzzle
pieces that get together and shine as a whole image. "Whole" is a great word to use
here. Because DIVINE is all about each person speaking his/her truth (in a symbolic way,
of course), and realizing that many other people (even strangers), think and feel and
behave in the same way we do.

- If I present this effect in a live close-up situation, I try not to stay still seating in my chair
all the time. Again, mathematics tends to make everything too square and too rigid, so
the performer should keep things in motion. I may stand, walk around the audience, or
ask the audience to stand up and surround me. Whatever you feel it's right, you can try
and see how it works to help the effect become better. Whatever you do that doesn't
feel right, you can review, supervise, change and adapt.

- I would like to suggest that you start with the basic presentation. Don't try to put in
motion every single subtlety the first time you present the effect. Don't try to perform
the effect in front of a hundred people as your first experience. Gather five or six friends
in a Zoom meeting, and try the effect with them. Do it like that a few times, and then
maybe try it with more people in a small or informal virtual show. See what happens.
Correct, adjust, put more work into it, try to find your hidden tools (we all have a lot
more tools than we can imagine), and set in motion your engine and wheels. This effect
deserves all you can give to it, and it will provide you with a lot more in return.
- A few months ago, Mario Lopez (great magician from Spain) appeared in Fool Us and
fooled Penn & Teller ("Fooled by a nipple", said Penn). At the time of the feedback, Penn
told him something that stayed with me, and I believe it applies to this effect. He said,
"The style that you have is so casual, so easy and so comfortable, and yet I believe you
are one of the most precise technicians we have ever had on the show". I believe this
effect must be performed with that combination of casual, comfortable and detached,
and at the same time with tight precision in execution and musical cadence in the
presentation. Suppose the magician lingers for too long in any of the steps. In that case,
confusion could kill the mystery, or the audience could discover the secret by having an
extra second to think and achieve clarity. The musical pace will keep the audience
entertained and distracted from the method, and the casual one will relax them so that
they won't be in an alert state thorough the effect.
I love to face the challenge each time I perform the effect. 100% audience management,
complicated little things to have under control, body language saying "I don't care, I'm
not in charge", real interactions with participating spectators that can affect the
outcome of the experience. Scary, in a way, but honest and exciting.

- The "Cardistry" Option

If you are a cardician, or if your technical level with cards is good enough, or if you
believe this is needed and you are willing to put in the work and effort required, there
is a way to achieve two great things at the same time: make the effect even more
deceptive, and eliminate a weak spot at the same time. And it is to exchange the
"shuffle" where the spectator dictates where to put cards in the four piles, with two Faro
shuffles.

After you collect all the 16 cards, you will have the cards from D on top, and the cards
from A on the bottom. But you can collect them the other way around, for you to end
up with the cards from A on top, B next, C next, and D at the bottom. Now you say that
you will shuffle the cards, and you proceed to do it. You Faro shuffle two times. The
audience will see a real shuffle, done twice, so they will be 100% sure that you really
shuffled the cards and that it's impossible for you to have any idea where the cards
ended up after the two shuffles. But now you have all the cards in the perfect order
(from top to bottom): Ax, Bx, Cx, Dx, Ax, Bx, Cx, Dx, Ax, Bx, Cx, Dx, Ax, Bx, Cx, Dx. Nothing
else is needed. You just show the cards in groups of four, and whoever says "YES" you
immediately know which card is the right one.

You can still gather the cards so D's cards end up on top, as long as you remember that
the order is reversed, and A is not anymore 1, but 4, and so on.

However, if you go the Faro way, it's imperative to change the display order when you
show the cards. You just can't take the four cards and display them as they come from
the shuffle, because there will be a card from A in each group in the left of the fan, a
card from B in each group second from the left (or right, depending on how you fan the
cards), a card from C in each group third from the left, and a card from D always in the
right of the fan. It may raise suspicions, so please change the order a little, using the
already suggested tip: first group C, D, A, B; second group A, B, C, D; third group B, C, D,
A; fourth group D, C, B, A. Or something like that.

- Live Shows

There are usually three different situations present in most of the Live Shows I perform:
a private home or space, where 10 to 50 guests celebrate a birthday anniversary or
something like it; a hotel or restaurant or conference room where 50 t0 100 guests
celebrate a private or a corporate event, and a big room or theatre, where a company
hire a show for its employees or clients, or where people purchase tickets to see a show.

I handle the presentation a little different in each of those situations.

If the show is small, in a private space with guests that know each other or mingle with
each other, I will try to walk among them as much as I can. There is usually no scenic
space in this situation, just a living room or space with chairs or sofas or people seating
on the floor, or standing at the rear. I will try to walk away from the idea of "the magician
here and the audience there". Since there won't be any lighting or physical separation,
it will be easy to make it informal and intimate. In this situation, I will try to remember
as many names as possible, which I believe is a strong effect in itself. It is possible that,
in a show like these, one, two or three guests will think of the same card. So, when I ask
them to raise their hands if they see their cards, it will be easy to identify them
individually and make some remarks about them, before revealing their selections. For
example, maybe the man and the woman who are married thought of the same card.
That's a plus. Perhaps the father and his son, perhaps the host of the event and his or
her best friend. Maybe the boss and the members of the team, maybe the grandfather,
and the son, and the grandson. I try to pay special attention to these "coincidences"
because if I succeed in picking them up, they will make the effect a miracle.
Most of the time, in these kinds of events, I will take more time to interact with the
audience. These are not long shows, paced to a script, where there is a team working
the technical aspects. Here it's just me, so I can take my time, relax, and be a little more
playful than usual. I will ask more names, I will ask about relationships, I will ask other
things that may come to mind.
I will also take a couple of risks, small and controlled ones. For example, after I ask the
guests to see their cards in the fan I'm displaying, I will count them out loud; I will look
at them as if there is something wrong, and I will say: "I believe that at least one more
person thought about a card that is here but is not raising his/her hand". I invented that.
But, 85% of the time, a person will raise his/her hand after I say that and will comment
on it. That's another plus that will make the effect even stronger.
If nobody reacts to the remark, still the rest of the audience will look around and make
some comments (whispered or out loud), like: "I'm sure that Robert forgot his card...",
or "Come on, Laura, we know you...".
I can't abuse of that "trick". I can only afford to do it once, each time I present the effect.

Another thing I do, especially in private and intimate shows, is asking the host to invite
anybody who is working in the event, like waiters/waitresses, cleaning person, guards,
drivers, or whoever else is there. There is an element of variety that helps the effect for
the better when this happens, and I believe it's related to the fact that friends and family
may feel that it's normal to choose the same cards if they did. But they will be excited
by the fact that some people who don't belong to the family or intimate group of lifetime
friends also chose the same cards. I only mention this because it happened to me many
times: someone in the family, or the host of the event, says that it was incredible to
witness how so many "different" people chose the same card.

If I have to perform a show for around 50 to 100 people in an informal situation, I will
try to have them as close as possible. The energy of the calling out loud the cards will be
stronger if they are seating close to each other. If it's a formal show, I will walk between
the tables (usually round tables for 8 to 10 guests), and have fun with them as I pass by.
If I have more than 100 guests or they are seating far from the stage, and there is a stage
with lighting, I will avoid walking around, since in that case the show will lose its power
when we abandon our stage. In those cases, and in the theatres, I will have a big screen
and a cameraman, following me as I display the cards. Not from a tripod, but as a curious
spectator that doesn't want to miss a bit of the show, in the hopes that he will be able
to discover my secrets. This is an instruction I give to the cameramen I find, if they are
not part of my team. "Please, follow the action with excitement, like if you would like to
discover my secrets". I show the cards to the camera, and I ask the audience to look at
the screen and try to see if their cards are among the ones displayed.

- TV Shows

Just in case it's not evident to you, we need four people in the studio to participate, and
a small table to shuffle the cards. I usually prefer to have two people on my right side
and two people at my left. Here, If I can get two men and two women, I will change the
setting to appeal to the cameras: A will be a man, B will be a woman, C will be a woman,
D will be a man. This way, the display on the camera will be Man, Woman, Man
(magician), Woman, Man. This is more equilibrated than the regular display for live
shows. And in this case, it matters even more, because the audience can see the display
like a picture.

Each time I perform on TV, I involve the audience at home. This effect is perfect for that.
There is no difference in the method: everybody at home will choose a card from A's
group, either A1, A2, A3 or A4. No mystery there.

But, what is very engaging and powerful in that kind of performances, is that I'm divining
the cards thought by people that are in another country, or city, people I can't see,
people I can't influence in any way. And I can exaggerate as much as I can, by saying that
hundreds of thousands selected the same card.

I also try to involve the technicians, the cameramen, the makeup artists, everybody in
the studio, and everybody in the control room, who can speak to the set through the
tall-back. As you saw in the three TV performances, people are not only concerned about
their cards, but they are amazed to witness how I revealed the cards from the director
of the show, the producers, and the people at home, even though the people at home
can't say "you did find my card". My acting needs to convey confidence that says "I know
I know, even though I don't even know how I know". This is not something I have to say
out loud, but confidence is essential at the time of the revelations, mostly to cover for
any miscalled cards (I will speak about that at the end).

Regarding the cameras, I could speak about it for weeks, but I will only focus on some
key things that will add to the impact of this effect.
I always explain to the director, the producer and the cameramen precisely what I will
do. If possible, I will rehearse with them before airing, so they will understand what I
expect from them, and compose in their heads the shots that will help amplify the
experience for the viewers.
In this specific effect, the most important thing is that people at home can get to see the
cards at the moment of choosing, that they can see that I'm not watching a monitor to
check which cards are playing and that they can see the cards again when I show and
ask them to raise their hands. Those three moments are critical.
I will also ask the director to try to switch the cameras when the spectator is helping me
shuffle the cards on the table. If a camera is fixed on the table and the shuffle is too
exposed, it may be a problem later when someone plays the effect on YouTube or a
recorder. So, I tell the director that, since the moment of the shuffle is not very
attractive, he can make the best of that moment showing the faces of the guests, the
host/hosts, the cameramen or the people in the studio, and mix those faces with the
display of the shuffle.

Finally, I would like to mention a subtlety that I find difficult to explain, but I believe it's
worth the effort: in a TV show, the only thing that it's important is the audience
engagement. Nobody cares about the people in the studio, even if there's plenty of
people there. Nobody cares about the technicians, the producers and even the hosts.
The ONLY thing that matters is the audience.
When I say "I will read everybody's minds, including the people at home", usually the
producers of the show get very excited, even after I tell them that I will need about 5 to
7 minutes to perform only one effect. They don't care, as long as the people at home
can participate.

What they can't know is if I'm capable of doing what I have promised. They have no way
to check if what I say is true. Maybe a person will call the Network, but that happens
very seldomly. Perhaps the wife or kids of the producer will tell him that I got their cards
when he comes back from work at night. But then it will be too late, and I will be long
gone.

Since I know about this detail, I will use it to my advantage. I must be 100% confident
that I'm finding 100% of the cards selected by the people at home. The fact that I get
100% of the cards from the people in the studio will reinforce that idea, but I have to
help with my psychological "weight". I must be excited about connecting with the people
on the other side of the screen, and I have to play cool but somehow detached to the
people in the studio. We are talking about a potential audience of hundreds of
thousands there, versus 15 to 20 people here in the studio. Of course, those out there
are and should be more important than these here. I believe it's a matter of perspective.
I'm betting on a race-horse that nobody can see. During and after the effect, I act excited
as if my horse just won the race, and nobody can prove if it's true or not because my
horse is invisible. That's a lot of fun, there is no risk of being wrong, because that horse
will never speak, and almost nobody will be able to check nor tell until it's too late for
regrets.

At the moment of showing the cards to the camera to ask if they see their cards there, I
may say something like "I can almost see those hands in the air... they are thousands,
maybe, waving, from different cities, even from different countries..."
Of course, I can't see them, and I have no idea of who they are, or even if there is
anybody there watching the show or selecting cards. But, I will grow the energy for the
final revelation by making a strong point about the thousands (or millions) out there. I
act confident that they ARE watching and that they DID select cards. That confidence
will be contagious for everybody in the studio, and the energy created will thrust the
camera to get back at them at home.

- Virtual Shows

This is the version that I have performed less, but I'm very excited because it was great
every time. The whole point of Virtual Shows is getting to the guest's homes, and getting
into their minds is even stronger. They don't need to have cards in their hands; they
don't need to count cards, nor add or subtract numbers, they don't have to do this or
that, just think of a card, and not tell anybody about it. This is the strongest possible
plot: you are in your home, you think of a card, I get it from the other side of the world.
Not just your card, but EVERYBODY's card.
And there are some specific subtleties and tools that serve the purpose of amplifying
the impact, which I've already tried and tested.

The first one is the shuffling, at the beginning of the effect.

I mention it because this is the only version where I can't give the cards to someone to
shuffle them. So I must make a strong point about the shuffle of the cards.
I shuffle the cards more than it makes any sense. I do it because I can, and because the
shuffling won't change a thing. The effect will work perfectly if I shuffle the deck, and if
I don't.
I will even ask someone from the audience if he wants me to shuffle even more. And
maybe I will even mix the cards between each spectator's selection.

The amount of attention I draw to the shuffle will throw away any suspicion about
mathematics out of the window. I will make a strong point about the shuffle at the
beginning, during the effect, and at the end.

I may also point out that I have no monitors, no assistants, no interest in seeing which
cards are in play, or any other information about the cards. I will say that this experience
is not about the cards, but about their thoughts.
Then, I will select and Spotlight four spectators. I will try to choose people who aren't
alone. The more people in each of the four screens, the better for the revelation at the
end.

So, with the new version of Zoom, everybody should see five screens on display (speaker
view): mine, and four with A, B, C, D.
I will know their names (written in the screen), and I will call their names out loud several
times during the effect.

I have to pay special attention to the order/display of these four screens. I must number
them, and I must remember the order I selected. A good idea is to order them
alphabetically, so I will always know who comes first, second, third and fourth. But you
can use any "formula" to identify them, as long as you are sure about who is who.

As I mentioned earlier, I found two methods to ask them to select their group of cards.
The one I'm using is asking them to name numbers, from small to big so that I will count
to those cards for them. Usually, people would say "two, seven, twelve, fifteen", and I
will take those cards from the deck. Yesterday, in a show, a woman (elder, and not too
connected to the show, my bad), drove me crazy calling big numbers instead of small
ones. She said "twenty-seven, forty-two, eleven, four", so she made it very awkward and
made me waist time. It was the first time it happened. I hope it was the only one.
This selection with numbers works great because as soon as the first person does it, the
rest of them know exactly what they have to do. It's a lengthier process than ideal, but
Virtual Shows are far from ideal in almost all things. In this effect, though, the selection
is unimportant, so I ask you to please try a couple of options, and stick with the one that
feels more organic to your style. The message should be "I don't care, it's not important,
I just need each one of you to have a few cards to choose from", which is 100% true.

Now I will show each spectator each group of cards. I fan each group, and hold the cards
close to the primary camera, at the same time that I look to the floor or the side. I make
sure that the cards allow some space in the frame for the audience to see my face along
with the cards. I mention this because Jumbo Cards are too big and when opened in a
fan and close to the camera they will occupy the whole picture. I don't want the
audience to miss my face looking somewhere else. And also, this effect is NOT about the
cards but our connection.

Now they all have their cards selected. I ask them to remember those cards as their lives
depend on it. I ask them not to share their thoughts/cards with anybody. While I'm
asking them to retain their cards, I'm picking up the first group again, and holding it
facing the camera; I ask everybody else to select a card, too. I say "each one of you should
have thought of a card right now, please remember those cards, and forget the rest".

The two most important things that I do in the Virtual Shows, which add a lot of value
to the effect, are:

a) When I ask them to raise their hands if they see their cards, I change to gallery view
and count them out loud. I don't care to be precise, but I do count the hands in the air,
and name some names, saying something like "I see a Vanessa, and a Charly and John,
among them... wow, about twenty-three people see their cards here... let's see...".

b) I ask these guests to open their microphones.

Now, I ask them all to name the card they have chosen. It's powerful to hear their card,
which is the same for everybody. This moment (that I will repeat three more times), is
one of the strongest of the Virtual Show. As I said already, the sense of community here
is compelling, the feeling of relief, of togetherness, and belonging. Their voices are
heard, and their voices expressed a bond, a coincidence that feels magical.

Right after the applause and the gasps, I leave their microphones on for a little while,
because, in the homes where there is more than one person, they will say great things
about what just happened. They will even course, which is always a lot of fun for the
rest of the audience.
Now I will ask them to mute their microphones because we must find many more cards.
My stage manager/assistant will check and mute any microphones that are still open.

I will repeat the process until we get to the four cards face down on the table, that
belong to each of the four spectators.

Now I ask them to open their microphones, and I also ask all the guests who selected
the same card than A to unmute their microphones as well. Now I will go through this
last phase without pausing between its revelations. My goal is to make it seamless and
feel like just one big moment with in-crescendo energy.
I pick up the card from D and ask him to name his card out loud. He names the card, I
show it. I repeat this with the next two cards. And at the end, I pick up the last card and
ask A and the rest of the audience who chose the same card to name it out loud. They
do, I show the card. End of the experience.

I leave the microphones open for a minute, and let all the comments to pile up. After
each Virtual Show, many people mentioned how great it felt to listen to other guests
scream, or gasp, or course, or simply make a comment. They all said that it was the
closest feeling to being in the theatre, and they all were thankful for that.

I believe I have covered all but one topic.

- Forgotten cards

As it usually happens when we ask spectators to participate in any given effect, people
will eventually forget or miscall their cards.
This effect is prone to confusion because we are dealing with everybody, not just one
trustable person that we handpicked to help. The lack of control is a plus, in this effect.
But it is also a liability.
There are two scenarios that we must consider: a random spectator forgetting or
miscalling his/her card, and a specific participant (one of the four) forgetting or
miscalling his/her card.
The first case is not a big deal. If a person names the wrong card out loud, the voice will
be lost among the many other voices calling the card correctly. If 20 people scream "Nine
of Hearts", nobody will hear the one person who said "Queen of Spades". I usually let
that miscalled card pass by unnoticed, and I don't make any remarks about it. But, if I
feel that the voice was loud enough to be heard, I may say something like "There is
always a person who is willing to fail just to draw attention to him/her..." I say this in a
playful tone. I can't get upset with this person; I need to understand that the mistake is
typical, and there is nothing wrong with one person to forget or miscall his/her card. It's
not personal, they are not trying to harm the show, the effect is still a show-stopper, so
I don't worry about it.

But, when it is one of the four spectators who miscall or forget the card, I can't just
ignore it and keep going as if nothing had happened. I must address the situation, and
resolve it elegantly.
Regardless of which one of the four made a mistake, I don't show the face of the card
on the table, leave the card there face down, and say "Oh... I will get back to you in a
moment". And keep going with the rest of the cards.
In the end, after the other cards have been revealed and the final applause has ended, I
will go back to that person and that card.
There are a few ways to fix this problem. One of them is, of course, having an Invisible
Deck ready and at hand, and reveal that card at the end. Another way is having a regular
deck at hand, palm the selected card and produce it from a wallet, zipper compartment,
pocket, etcetera. I may say "It's strange... before we began with the show, when I was
checking my material in the dressing room, I had a reverie. Normally I wouldn't pay any
attention to it, but this time I did. It was related to an accident in the show, a card lost
or forgotten. So I took a card from a deck and placed it in my wallet. I don't know why I
did that, maybe as an amulet, for luck." And I will produce the card from wherever I put
it.

If you work with any kind of final Prediction Chest, you can include the selected card in
the message. The message could say something like "Virginia will name a different card
than the one she selected. Instead of the Seven of Clubs, she will say Five of Diamonds,
but all will be well at the end because she is still a lovely partner".

If you are working with a regular sized deck, you could find and control the missing card
to the top and do a top change. You can come up with the right back up for yourself.

Depending on the energy created, I may also let that mistake pass by. I have tested it,
and it works perfectly well. I'm finding 100% of the chosen cards, and the experience is
already overwhelming for the audience. One mistake, in this case, is no mistake.

- A final word of caution

As I have previously said, I've performed this effect thousands of times for a wide variety
of audiences in a wide arrange of events and situations.
But, I usually don't have to deal with hecklers or drunk/drugged audiences, and I don't
perform in noisy or uncontrolled situations. I don't know if this is related to the style of
my shows, just plain luck, or other reasons I simply ignore.

I have experienced it at The Magic Castle: I have had to select different repertoires for
Early Parlour and Late Parlour. Early Parlour audiences are mostly fresh and still sober.
Late Parlour ones are primarily spoiled. I would happily perform this effect in Early
Parlour, but I would be hesitant to include it in Late Parlour shows.
I strongly suggest that you should be careful at the moment of including this effect in
your repertoire. You will find that performing this effect on drunk audiences or in noisy
environments is a very challenging task to undertake. You need a lucid and committed
audience to help you make this effect a miracle. If you don't have the audience with you,
it will be a mess, more like a battlefield with a lot of casualties than a celebration of
mystery. It's up to you and your good judgement.

I have experienced awful situations in shows where magicians got very upset because a
spectator did or said something off the book. It seems to be okay for the magician to
make fun of the audience, but not if the audience makes an innocent joke on the
performer.
I attributed all of those awkward moments to the insecurities of the magicians, who felt
personally attacked when the mistakes were theirs. They either didn't quite explain
properly what the spectator should say or do, or they overstepped their boundaries and
went too far with a joke on a spectator, or they didn't plan their repertoires according
to the moment, place or audience. Maybe, they simply couldn't have fun with a
comment or a joke made by a person who had interpreted "audience participation" in a
slightly different way than the rest of the people in the room.
In those situations, what could have been a simple problem to fix, ended up being a
mess.
I remember a particular show, at the Peller Theatre, in which the (very well known)
magician got so upset with a spectator that he ended up kicking the guy out of the room.
That case, I can assure, it was a clear example of hurt vanity and insecurity on the
magician, not a problem of the person who made a funny comment in a relaxed (and
yes, alcoholic) night while having fun with his friends.

I could spend a lot more time sharing thoughts, tips and ideas on the presentation of
this effect. But I believe that now it's time to let you start your journey with DIVINE.
Please let me know about your doubts, your discoveries, so we can keep growing this
project together, as so many great names in magic did before we even existed.

- Further (great) ideas from magicians I admire and appreciate

Richard Pinner suggested that the magician should ask the four spectators to select the
cards, but don't look at them. The magician asks them to shuffle their cards, and then
asks them to look at the card that ended at the top of the pack. Or even take any card
from the pack, look at it and remember it. Then, to lose that card in the package again.
The magician now collects the cards, false shuffles them, and takes the first four cards
to display them to the rest of the audience for them to choose their cards.
This suggestion will serve two purposes:
1) It will prevent each spectator to be confused with other cards in their packs, since
they have seen only one.
2) It will prevent each spectator to know that the rest of the audience is looking at the
four A's cards. Since A only saw one of her cards, she only sees her card in the package
the magician shows to the audience, and she doesn't know that the other three cards
are her cards.
I believe this idea is a great one, worth trying.
Thank you Richard, for your clever addition and thinking.

Jim Steinmeyer made a point related to "procedural" effects.

He said that magicians criticize procedure, but that magic IS procedure.
Criticizing procedure is like saying that the only worth note on an aria is the final C note.
So the rest of the song could be thrown away, and only the note performed.
Or a mystery novel would be better if it consisted only in the final chapter, since the rest
of the book exists only to get to that final point.
I believe that this is a wise way of thinking about procedure. We, magicians and
mentalists, should learn how to make the procedures of our magic as entertaining and
lovable as the final magic moment. I believe that a meal is a lot more than the food we
eat, as making love is about a lot more than the moment of the orgasm.
Thank you Jim. As I told you, you are always inspiring.

Howard Hamburg told me that we should avoid using the word "take", when we offer
the cards to the spectators. He suggested the words "choose" or "select", which indicate
freedom.
He remembered a lovely story with Dai Vernon, around 1971, at the Magic Castle
Library. The Professor wanted Howard to observe something, so he spread the cards
face down on the table, and walked to the end of the room. While his back was facing
the table, he asked a magician to "take a card". Later, the magician said to Howard "I
don't know how he did it, but he gave me that card, didn't he?"
So, the word "take" made the magician feel that the card was given to him, forced to
him. And we should avoid the audience to feel that way, so "choose" and "select" may
be a better fit.
Thank you, dear Howard, for the beautiful memory and your clever suggestion.

Norberto Jansenson
Buenos Aires, Argentina, September 2020.

- Endorsements

"Masterly presentation of a unique twist of an almost forgotten classic.

Jansenson has achieved the perfect artistic bond between prophecy, divination, and ESP,
to produce a massive impact in the mind and the soul of all audiences.
A true prodigy for live shows and a mind-bending interactive experience for virtual
shows, in which every single member of the audience takes part.
His presentation is outstanding. A 21st. Century magical gem."
Carlos Bronzini - Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina.

"When I first saw you performing this effect during your Zoom show, you fooled me
badly. I thought for sure it was a memorized deck. Boy, I was wrong. This is wayyyy
better; it's a powerhouse of a mentalism piece, good enough for closing any show. I am
going to learn it, with your blessing, and put it in mine."
Michael Rangel - Los Angeles, CA.

"Your presentation reminds me of a patter that Dante used to use for his Linking Ring
Routine: "Down the road there is a shop where you can buy a set of these rings. Nearby
is another shop where you can buy a violin. Then you must learn to play".
You have taken a very simple trick, which has been used and abused, and turned it into
a concerto."
Jim Steinmeyer - Los Angeles, CA.

"An ancient principle updated, expanded, and thoroughly tested for maximum magical
impact on modern audiences."
Paul Vigil - Las Vegas, NV.

"The Professor would often remark, "Many magicians stop thinking too early." He
certainly was not referring to Norberto Jansenson who, in my opinion, cleverly
utilizes subtleties to its maximum in his Divine Project."
Howard Hamburg - Los Angeles, CA.

"Different
Impactful
Visual
Impossible
Novel
Exquisite..."
Juan Alvarez - Bogota, Colombia.

- Acknowledgements

I would like to thank some people who kindly collaborated in this project.
Carlos Bronzini, great magician and scholar from Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina, for all the
precious information about the history of this effect that he provided to me, but also for
his support in more ways than I can express.
Henry Evans, an old and dear friend for whom I have the greatest admiration and
respect, for his constant advice and endorsement.
Richard Pinner and Luis de Matos, for their great ideas, that helped improving the quality
of this project.
Jim Steinmeyer, for his constant inspiration and generosity.
Howard Hamburg, for his story and his suggestions.
Martín Pacheco, owner of Bazar de Magia -the biggest magic shop in Argentina-, for
letting me use his extraordinary Fu Manchu museum to take pictures and record some
of the videos for this project. He and Guillermo Tallon are always kind to me, and his
collection and knowledge about the history of magic are inspiring.
Agustín Canolik, a young and talented hypnotist and mentalist, for his help, for the
pictures and the trailer.