Price$35.00
Media TypeTrick
CategoryMentalism
Date AddedFeb 13, 2014
Ninja Tossed Out Deck System
Patrick Redford
George Tait
(Based on 2 reviews)
The Tossed-Out Deck System Involves:
- No Breathers
- No Short Cards
- No Long Cards
- No Marked Cards
- No Deck Switches
- No Alterations to the Cards of any kind
- No Memory Work
- No Fishing
- No Stack Necessary
All 52 cards are present and accounted for.
Secretly set the whole system right in front of your audience with a borrowed deck of cards!
Reviews
(Top ▲)
Overview
One DVD, one system, one Patrick Redford and $35 bucks. Is it gem or is it rubble? Stay tuned to find out.Effect
First, let's clarify. This is not a Tossed Out Deck in the traditional sense. Originally, the Hoy effect was to toss a deck out to the audience (wrapped in rubber bands) and have someone peek a card. They pass it to another, and that person peeks, etc. Then the deck is tossed back up on stage. You don't have to touch the deck at all, and you are able to name the cards peeked.This is a system of having any number of people to peek at a card from a regular deck of 52 while still allowing you to name all of the peeked cards. However, the deck cannot be tossed about. More on that below in the Method section.
Method
In the original Hoy method, the deck could not be examined, but the spectators could handle it freely and peek their card and pass it around without the involvement of the magician. When the cards were peeked, the deck could be tossed aside without you ever having to touch it again. Due to the gimmicked nature of the deck, the procedure is extremely hands free.The Ninja system, however, requires very specific handling from the spectators, and if they don't handle the deck the way you want, you have to intervene and handle the deck. However, the deck is examinable. So the selection process is nowhere near as free as the original Hoy version, but the deck is not gimmicked in this (Ninja) version.
There are multiple methods taught on this DVD for multiple scenarios. However, some of them are not a tossed out deck routine, but rather a routine for one person. The method for the tossed out version requires a stack and requires the cards to be handled in a specific way by the spectator, and requires you to handle the boxed deck for about one second after the selections are peeked at.
So it would go something like this:
Give the (stacked) boxed deck to a spectator
She removes the deck and cuts the deck as many times as she wants
She peeks the top card
She hands the deck to another spectator in a certain way that you've coached her to do
The next spectator does the same
Then another spectator does the same
This continues as many times as you want
The final spectator does the same but buries the top card in the deck after he peeks it
He then gives the cards back to the person with the box who boxes the cards
The boxed deck is handed back to you
You do a super quick secret (and totally undetectable) "something"
You reveal all of the peeked cards
The deck (same deck — no switch) and card box can be given away as a gift
That's the nutshell version. In order to do that, you must have a stacked deck. If you don't have a stacked deck, you cannot do the effect. You can, however, do a similar effect to one person. More on this in the Ad Copy Integrity section.
Product Quality
The DVD is produced well enough. It's pretty well lit, mic'd, etc. The teaching was very thorough and very well done, and it covers everything you need to know, plus a very deceptive false overhand shuffle, and more.Ad Copy Integrity
What I've found with this particular ad copy is that they seemed to have chosen their words very carefully. I'd say that they walked up to the line and maybe peeked over and possibly stuck a pinky toe on the line, but not quite over it.Written Ad Copy
The first claim in the written ad copy is this: "If you want to tell people what cards they're thinking of under the most strict looking conditions... you need the Ninja Tossed-Out Deck System." Ignoring the claim that "you need the Ninja Tossed-Out Deck . . ." the first half of the claim is technically and literally true. You can tell people what cards they're thinking of under very strict looking conditions. This is particularly true if you're doing it for only one person. But even as a tossed out deck type of scenario (i.e., multiple people peek and pass around the deck), it's a true statement.
The bullet points make the claim that there are No Breathers, No Short Cards, No Long Cards, No Marked Cards, No Deck Switches, No Alterations to the Cards of any kind. This is also absolutely true. When it comes to the claim that there is No Memory Work, this is mostly true. It does require a stack, and any stack (even Si Stebbins) requires some level of remembering, but it's close enough that I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
The claim that there is no fishing is only true when the last bullet point (No Stack Necessary) is not being invoked. In other words, if you're using a stack, then there is no fishing. However, if you're not using a stack, then the only effect you can do is with one person, and in that case, there are some cases where fishing will be needed.
While the next claim that all 52 cards are there is accurate, the last statement requires some clarity, to say the least. The claim is that you can set the system up from a borrowed deck. Well . . . that's sort of true.
First, if the borrowed deck is a full unopened deck, and you know how to do the Ortiz system of setting up a new deck into a S.S. set up. How to do this is taught on the DVD. But the reason I bring this up is because making a statement that you can do this from a borrowed deck would seem to imply that you're referring to a deck that has been used before, not a brand new one.
However, there is a method taught for setting up a truly shuffled deck into S.S. order. However, it requires you to make six culls, and each cull is a cull of nearly half the deck. It's not something that can easily or quickly be done under fire.
As you can see, a few parts of the ad copy are accurate when looked at independently of other components of the ad copy. Further, because this is called a "Tossed Out Deck System," it is fair for potential customers to assume that the deck is tossed out and three (or some number) of spectators will peek and toss the deck to another person. With that reasonable assumption in mind, the claim that no stack is needed is untrue. To do that effect (3 people peek and toss) requires the stack. To say that that effect can be done with a borrowed deck is slightly misleading. The borrowed deck needs to be stacked first.
From a new deck, this is a quick and painless job (if you can Faro). However, if the deck is not new — the odds are that if you're borrowing a deck it won't be new — then you have to do a pretty heavy duty culling of cards that cannot be done in this environment. In other words, if you say, "let me borrow a deck," and they give you one, it would be very fishy, to say the least, to sit and fiddle and cull six different times right after borrowing the deck.
All in all, the written ad copy is mostly accurate, but there are so many caveats, and with the assumption that this effect is like traditional "Tossed Out" effects, then some points are very misleading. The claim of no stack needed only works on a one-on-one basis, and during that one-on-one basis (with a non-stacked deck) there's a chance you'll need to do some fishing.
Video Trailer
The video trailer makes some misleading claims as well. It says that a normal unaltered deck is shuffled by the audience. First, with the assumption that you're trying to do the Tossed Out effect (i.e., multiple people peek and pass the deck) this doesn't work. If you have one spectator quickly give it an overhand shuffle, then you're likely okay, but if each of the spectators shuffle, you've got a problem. Also, even if just the one spectator shuffles, when you do this for multiple people, each person who cuts and peeks a card increases your chance of something going wrong.
The only time it's actually safe is if you're doing this for one person (not three-ish as in traditional Tossed Out Deck routines). Even in the case of just one person, there's still a risk that you'll miss. In fact, when Patrick Redford was explaining this concept on the DVD, he missed. The explanation of how to get out of this does not work. The out for this he gave requires you to somehow (magically?) know in advance that the shuffle mixed up things for you. The problem is that you won't know for sure until you name the card and they tell you it's wrong. By then it's too late to do his out, which is to go back to the deck, remove it from the box and peek the top card of the deck. That dog don't hunt folks.
The effect you saw on the ad trailer is the one-person version. The one you saw used a stack. However, it does look that good and is truly that clean. Had he handed the deck out to be shuffled, it would have still been that clean 96.8292% of the time. At the end of the video, there was the claim, again, that no stack is required. Like I said, they chose they're words carefully. It's not required, but without it, the effect that you saw in the ad trailer is not possible. The effect changes when you're not using a stack. First, the cards cannot be put in the box. Second, if the spectator doesn't do things just right, there will be some fishing.
Final Thoughts
When all is said and done, if you're expecting a traditional Tossed Out Deck style routine, here's what you'll be missing: The hands-off nature of handling the deck in the original. Here are some risks you'll inherit with this method: If the spectator doesn't do things just right, you'll have to handle the deck more than (I think) you should in this type of routine. Thus you're sacrificing even more of the hands-off nature of the original. What you gain(?) with this version is that each spectator is truly thinking of a different card and you can truly name each card one at a time. Also another gain(?) is that the deck is totally examinable.Both this version and the original require a stack. If you want to do an impossible seeming card mind-reading effect, the one person version with the stacked deck (the one the ad trailer) is a very good method and very deceptive. If you're looking for a traditional looking tossed out deck with a non-stacked, shuffled deck (as the ad copy may have lead you to believe), look elsewhere, 'cause it ain't here.
If you don't mind the stack, and/or like the version shown in the trailer, then you'll be happy with this purchase. If you're hopping to do Tossed Out Deck without a stack and with a shuffled, borrowed deck, you'll probably be disappointed with this.
Final Verdict:
3 Stars with a Stone Status of Gem.
(Top ▲)
The Tossed Out Deck is a classic piece of mentalism and can be found in the repertoire of countless working professionals. While many versions of the Tossed Out Deck have been released over the years, most use the same method David Hoy created over 50 years ago. An exception to this rule is the “Ninja Tossed Out Deck System” by Patrick Redford, an approach to the Tossed Out Deck plot with multiple methodological differences.
In the original Tossed Out Deck, a deck of cards wrapped in a rubber band is tossed to an audience member, who peeks at a card, then tosses it to another spectator who does the same. This process is repeated with several people, then the deck is tossed back to the magician, who proceeds to reveal the audience member’s selections.
That is how the effect appears to the audience. While the reality is somewhat different, the description of the effect is absolutely accurate. Mr. Redford accomplishes a very similar effect, but instead of a rubber banded deck and a peek, the deck travels from spectator to spectator in the card box and the selection process involves each audience member cutting the deck, looking at the top card, then burying their selection in the pack.
While Mr. Redford’s handling does mimic the original Tossed Out Deck, his marketing copy is a bit confusing in its claims. For example, most of the benefits he lists are also true of Hoy’s original method, which begs the question, why list those benefits? Also, while it’s true that some of the methods Mr. Redford uses don’t use a stack (unlike Hoy’s method), the main method he discusses on the DVD does require a stack, yet he claims “no stack necessary” in the advertising copy. I assume his claim that his “system” doesn’t require a stack is based on the fact that he explains several methods that don’t need one. I know marketing magic effects is a trick on it’s own, but this release is strong enough independently that it doesn’t need manipulative copy to sell more DVD’s.
The DVD begins with a performance of the effect on one spectator, ably played by magician Keith Fields. Mr. Redford then goes on to explain his basic approach and how one would perform the effect for multiple spectators. The method involves an easily constructed gimmick, which he explains how to build. (As a side note, the gimmick is versatile, devious and a great tool for magicians in general.) This section also includes multiple tips and outs that he uses to make the effect more reliable, as well as how to deal with various actions the spectators may take during the selection process.
Mr. Redford then explains versions for different scenarios, including starting with a new deck as well as when working with a shuffled deck. He has two approaches with a shuffled deck, both of which are bold but I imagine would be extremely effective. He includes more tips and outs in this section as well, to help insure the effect goes off without a hitch.
Unfortunately, the content suffers from a lack of planning and organization. The information isn’t presented as clearly as it could be and a better effort could have been made as to how to organize it. While all the information one would need is present, it’s a bit jumbled. Furthermore, sections appear in a confusing order. For example, one section begins by referencing something taught after that section. And at one point the soundtrack loudly plays over the beginning of a chapter, which screams of an amateurish approach.
As to whether this is a “better” approach than David Hoy’s original method, that’s up to the individual to determine. While there are things that can go wrong in Hoy’s approach that can’t happen in Mr. Redford’s, there are things that can go wrong in his version that could never happen in Hoy’s. The highlights for me were actually the impromptu methods, which would be difficult to use to accomplish the same effect of the Tossed Out Deck in a stage show, but as a separate effect, would be mind blowing.
At its heart, the “Ninja Tossed Out Deck System” is good resource for clever alternative methods and approaches for a “think a card” effect, as well as handlings that allow one to perform the effect in varying circumstances. While not the “Holy Grail” of Tossed Out Deck methods, the number of ideas and tips, plus the variety of content, will be of practical interest to anyone interested in the “think a card” genre.
In the original Tossed Out Deck, a deck of cards wrapped in a rubber band is tossed to an audience member, who peeks at a card, then tosses it to another spectator who does the same. This process is repeated with several people, then the deck is tossed back to the magician, who proceeds to reveal the audience member’s selections.
That is how the effect appears to the audience. While the reality is somewhat different, the description of the effect is absolutely accurate. Mr. Redford accomplishes a very similar effect, but instead of a rubber banded deck and a peek, the deck travels from spectator to spectator in the card box and the selection process involves each audience member cutting the deck, looking at the top card, then burying their selection in the pack.
While Mr. Redford’s handling does mimic the original Tossed Out Deck, his marketing copy is a bit confusing in its claims. For example, most of the benefits he lists are also true of Hoy’s original method, which begs the question, why list those benefits? Also, while it’s true that some of the methods Mr. Redford uses don’t use a stack (unlike Hoy’s method), the main method he discusses on the DVD does require a stack, yet he claims “no stack necessary” in the advertising copy. I assume his claim that his “system” doesn’t require a stack is based on the fact that he explains several methods that don’t need one. I know marketing magic effects is a trick on it’s own, but this release is strong enough independently that it doesn’t need manipulative copy to sell more DVD’s.
The DVD begins with a performance of the effect on one spectator, ably played by magician Keith Fields. Mr. Redford then goes on to explain his basic approach and how one would perform the effect for multiple spectators. The method involves an easily constructed gimmick, which he explains how to build. (As a side note, the gimmick is versatile, devious and a great tool for magicians in general.) This section also includes multiple tips and outs that he uses to make the effect more reliable, as well as how to deal with various actions the spectators may take during the selection process.
Mr. Redford then explains versions for different scenarios, including starting with a new deck as well as when working with a shuffled deck. He has two approaches with a shuffled deck, both of which are bold but I imagine would be extremely effective. He includes more tips and outs in this section as well, to help insure the effect goes off without a hitch.
Unfortunately, the content suffers from a lack of planning and organization. The information isn’t presented as clearly as it could be and a better effort could have been made as to how to organize it. While all the information one would need is present, it’s a bit jumbled. Furthermore, sections appear in a confusing order. For example, one section begins by referencing something taught after that section. And at one point the soundtrack loudly plays over the beginning of a chapter, which screams of an amateurish approach.
As to whether this is a “better” approach than David Hoy’s original method, that’s up to the individual to determine. While there are things that can go wrong in Hoy’s approach that can’t happen in Mr. Redford’s, there are things that can go wrong in his version that could never happen in Hoy’s. The highlights for me were actually the impromptu methods, which would be difficult to use to accomplish the same effect of the Tossed Out Deck in a stage show, but as a separate effect, would be mind blowing.
At its heart, the “Ninja Tossed Out Deck System” is good resource for clever alternative methods and approaches for a “think a card” effect, as well as handlings that allow one to perform the effect in varying circumstances. While not the “Holy Grail” of Tossed Out Deck methods, the number of ideas and tips, plus the variety of content, will be of practical interest to anyone interested in the “think a card” genre.