4 ms·
Seems like one way to do the trick would be the following: Choose some pre-determined sequence of the cards and memorize it. Buy 52 decks of cards, and put them
by apjaffe 5y ago
Seems like one way to do the trick would be the following: Choose some pre-determined sequence of the cards and memorize it. Buy 52 decks of cards, and put them all in that same sequence, but shifted by various offsets, ranging from 0 to 51. Then hide all the decks in various places. Now when someone names a card and a number, you just need to figure out which deck is shifted by the right amount to put that card in that position and point them to the corresponding deck.
Anyone see any obvious flaws in this approach?
- antiterra 5y agoThe main flaw is practicality. The first thing you could do is cut it down to 26 decks, all you need to do then is have the participant count off the top with the face up instead of the bottom to replicate the other 26.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jonny_eh 5y agoThen if you allow “off by one” or 2, or 3, you can shrink it down further.
- IvyMike 5y agoFits with the Teller quote about magic: "Sometimes magic is just someone spending more time on something than anyone else might reasonably expect"
- ALittleLight 5y agoIf I can name any card and any position don't you need 52 ^ 2 decks? Or at least that many divided by 2 for counting off the top or bottom.
- anandoza 5y agoIf you want to frame it that way, then each physical deck can handle 52 distinct queries. So you have 52^2 / 52 = 52 decks required.
- rk06 5y agoNo, because a single deck can answer for 52 queries. and 52 decks (offset 0-51) will be sufficient for any card and number combo
- ALittleLight 5y agoOh, I see. For what it's worth, here is someone else performing the trick and it doesn't look like that's what's happening. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdXIVQ-asqU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdXIVQ-asqU
- perilunar 5y agoIt still requires memorising the positions of 52^2 cards though.
- stouset 5y agoNo, because all decks have the same order (just rotated).
- kevinmchugh 5y agoThanks for this. Just want to add, the "off by up to two" seems like a hedge for the author having his pick of three decks. Berglas couldn't remember or describe succinctly enough which of the three decks had the named card at the named index, but knew any of the three would be close.