Larry Horayne

He knows all your secrets. He invented them.

Month: December, 2012

To the person who googled ‘Who is Larry Horayne?’..


You fucking idiot. I AM YOUR DOCTOR, DO WHAT I SAY!
Happy holiday season for everyone, more shit to come soon.



Because someone needs to share this..

The essay below is not mine, and has been found freely shared online. I do not claim ownership of it and am simply reposting it here for people to read.
If you’ve already read it, share it around. If this if your first time reading it, enjoy the fuck out of it and share it ’til it hurts.


Dust-Motes In the Gird
©1999 by Jon Racherbaumer

“Raise tempers, goad and lacerate,
raise a whirlwind.”

Collegial relationships in magic are delicate things. Many are based on how “relatives” relate to their common interests and how they connect on issues. Sometimes it depends on where their agendas intersect and for how long. If it turns out that your colleague is likable and fun to be around, another kind of enduring bond is formed. A friendship ensues. Unfortunately, besides the Work, more things conspire to separate and divide magicians than unite and unify them. One of the great dividers is geography. If a colleague does not live in the same city, interaction only takes place during visits, at magic conventions, or infrequent vacation trips. Therefore, continuity is marked and marred by circumstantial interruptions. We resort to telephone conversations, letters, faxes, and now the Internet. In many cases, the only link between colleagues is sporadic letter-writing. For example, my relationship with Stephen Minch was epistolary for over twenty years before we actually met face-to-face. I have shared only two sessions with Ken Krenzel, yet we have talked on the telephone and have corresponded for almost thirty years. I have only been in Gene Maze’s presence twice, but I consider him a “brother” in the Magic Hood.

In a roundabout way, this brings me to the subject of Harry Lorayne, an old and battle-scarred colleague.

Harry, for those of you who don’t know, is—shall we say?—“a piece of work.”
Nevertheless, there are more things about him to like than to dislike.

I’m currently, no doubt, on his [vulgarité/insulte] list. This is partially due to guilt-by-relationship, naming my tie to Richard Kaufman. Harry considers Richie (as he calls Kaufman in charitable moments) an unrepentant “prunk” (Harry’s neologism, combining “punk” and “prick”). Their ongoing Slam Contest dates back to their Apocalyptic split. More recently, Harry took extreme exception to a footnote regarding the Halo Cut published in Magie Duvivier (1996), p. 80:

The Halo Bottom Slip Cut is explained in Rim Shots (1973), p. 131. The paternity of this move is still in contention. Many attribute the technique to Derek Dingle. However, although no documentation exists, hearsay testimony credits Frank Thompson with the move. He used the friction technique, but also used a pinky break above the bottom card. Neal Elias is also said to have had a similar sleight years ago.

(This seemed a fair way to report the provenance of this move. Harry thought otherwise.)

In the past, Harry published a few of my contributions in Apocalypse and Best of Friends, and we have been corresponding and sparring for years. We started out (in Harry’s words) enemies. My satire (“The Adventures of Harry Inane”) in Hierophant ruffled his feathers and over the years he vacillates between being ticked off and uneasily tolerant. The last time I saw him in person was 1978.

Harry’s first hard-cover book, Close-up Card Magic, is a classic. I love that book. It rekindled my interest in card magic back in 1965. All of our past, personal meetings were cordial, interesting, and fun, and to this day, I admire his energy, enthusiasm, and stylized way of presenting magic. I even enjoy and find amusing certain aspects of his otherwise irksome egocentricity. And who else can take a mediocre or bad trick and make it look like a miracle?

My biggest gripe against Harry-the-I is his appropriation of certain ideas, tricks, and sleights. I’m willing to accept claims of innocent reinvention (when they are plausible); however, his insistence of claiming certain things—even after he has been shown evidence to the contrary—is annoying and indefensible.

Pointing out such provenance is a lose-lose proposition. Those entitled to receive credit are usually dead and most magicians are not interested in the history of ideas, moves, and tricks. Those guilty of legitimate reinvention become upset or disappointed because they have been scooped and guilty of plagiarism are put in an awkward position or unfavorable light. They also construe such revelations as “personal attacks.”

What are my goals in writing about Harry’s penchant for taking credit for things he didn’t invent? Contrary to what my critics contend, I’m truly interested in finding facts related to the provenance of everything. I also think that creators should hold themselves accountable about what they publish or claim as their own. They should also be eager to receive complaints about their work and to diligently correct mistakes of fact and to fairly acknowledge previous references when they are pointed out to them.

With these thoughts in mind here is an article called…


Harry Lorayne a.k.a. Harry Ratzer recently blasted Richard Kaufman and myself, taking exception to a tiny footnote in Magie Duvivier (1996) regarding the so-called Halo Cut. This small and impartial credit apparently annoyed him; but Lorayne’s subsequent criticism (in Apocalypse) impugns my credibility as a conscientious historian. As my esteemed and calmer colleague, Stephen Minch, puts it—Good historians are always interested in further documentation that alters or adds to what we know and have discovered about magic’s complex development. In this regard, consider the following…

The goal of this assay is to point out a few facts grounded in the body of work Lorayne has amassed during the past forty years. Such facts are obdurate, glistening finds that guide historians in their quest to make sense of our history, especially its documents and how they relate to other works. They reveal the roles writers, interlocutors, essayists, critics, gossipists, pundits, and scoundrels play in this complicated scheme of things. This is a small step in the ongoing process of tracing the ancestral links of tricks, sleights, and ideas.


Lorayne’s career as a writer on magic began when Lou Tannen published a landmark book called Close-up Card Magic (1962). This trick-anthology, in the Rufus Steele mold, became a best-seller. More important, it was a hard cover book, written in a chatty, formulaic style that appealed to average magicians. It was also an anomaly because magic dealers did not publish many hard-cover books exclusively devoted to card tricks back then. After 1940, only a handful come to mind: Hilliard’s Card Magic (1944), Card Control (1946), The Card Magic of Le Paul (1949), Scarne On Card Tricks (1950), Effective Card Magic (1952), and Professional Card Magic (1961). There were, after all, only a few specialists in the 50’s and early 60’s. How many hard-core cardmen could there be? Fifty? A hundred? Close-up Card Magic not only appealed to the established community of cardmen, it was partially responsible for inspiring neophytes to become cardmen. If this is so, it also helped establish a new and conspicuous class of consumers—a special-interest group that spread the word and could make or break reputations.

Timing is everything and the appearance of Close-up Card Magic was fortuitous. While he collected 82 tricks, Lorayne only named 18 other magician-friends and colleagues. If the reader remembered anything, it would be his photograph and name. Lorayne left clues in his Foreword:

“…I have given credit whenever and wherever I could. If I have overlooked anyone, it is unintentional, and I offer my apologies in advance. So far as I know—most, if not all of course, of the effects, routines and ideas herein are of my own conception.”

If you study Close-up Card Magic and compare it to the Published Record then and now, you find that Lorayne overlooked at least twenty other magicians , even though he asserted that as “far as I [he] know—most, not all of course, of the effects, routines, and ideas…are my [his] own conception,” This is how the game is played. Although they have never been codified, there are rules.

Rule One: Explain a sleight’s specific technique without attribution.

Example: In Close-up Card Magic (p. 16), Lorayne explains the Faro Shuffle, which was not widely known or practiced at the time. Jerry Andrus is not credited with the specific way of weaving the sections from the top. He mentions that a book has been written on the shuffle, but does not mention it.

Rule Two: Crib from obscure sources or make sure that the idea is sufficiently “buried” in the literature, then credit someone else or take credit yourself by mentioning no one.

Example: The trick called “Stop!” on p. 64 is published in 50 Tricks (1946) by Rufus Steele. It is called “I Should Judge” (p. 38). There is no attribution in Steele’s book.

Example: “Lazy Man’s Card Trick” (p. 199) is credited to Jack Miller and Al Koran. Koran apparently fooled Lorayne with his presentation, but the principle was published in 50 Tricks (credited to Doc Miller). “That Number Down” is found on p. 34.

Rule Three: Take a previously published, original method-procedure from an old magazine, allude to it in a vague way, then add additional handling and phases. Since you have created a routine, you get credit for everything.

Example: “Coincidentally Yours” (p.) takes an idea from Ande Furlong that is buried in Hugard’s Magic Monthly (Vol. 8 – No. 11: April, 1951), p. 775. Granted: The extension, layout, and presentation are redeeming features and should be acknowledged and credited, but why omit Furlong’s name?

Rule Four: Take an idea from one source and combine it with another presentation, then credit someone else or take credit yourself. This kind of combinatorial activity makes back-tracking research very difficult.

Example: “Sam-ultaneous” (p. 114) is credited to Sam Schwartz, who apparently showed it to Lorayne. The mathematical principle should be credited to Professor Sidney Lawrence and was published in Ten Self Working Master Effects. The principle was later published by Hen Fetsch in Five O’Fetsch as “The Smith Myth,” credited to Fred Smith of Buffalo, New York. The presentation angle is derived from Paul Curry’s “Power Of Thought.” If Lorayne is called on any of these omissions, he can blame Schwartz.

Rule Five: Take an unpublished sleight, give it a name, and publish it before the originators can document their origination.

Example One: Lorayne was shown the Bottom Slip Cut by Derek Dingle. When Richard Kaufman asked him about this when they were on speaking terms, Harry admitted that Dingle had shown him the sleight. By then, however, cardmen were reacting favorably to it and the HaLo Cut title-attribution was taking hold.

Example Two: There is the rubber-band linking effect explained in The Magic Book (1977) by Karl Fulves, p. 44. This is Fulves’ handling of Ken Crossen’s trick. Lorayne published a similar handling using playing cards in Quantum Leaps (1979), p. 152. Bev Bergeron claims that he was performing this trick many years prior to Lorayne’s publication of “The Best Gosh Darn Impromptu Linking Card Effect You’ll Ever See” and he teaches it on his video instruction tape. Only Lorayne knows if he was inspired by the rubber-band link, but the underlying idea is the same and the rubber-band trick predates Lorayne’s application.. Most creations do not happen in psychic void. As Lucretius wrote, Nil posse creari de nilo (“nothing can be created out of nothing”). This is not to necessarily impugn Lorayne’s so-called creation but to simply show that two good ideas are ancestrally linked (no pun) in the Published Record. Bergeron’s claim can be challenged. However, given Lorayne’s history of tenaciously claiming certain ideas, sleights, and tricks that are not his to claim, it invites speculation about all his other claims, especially when provenance is unclear or at best murky.

Rule Six: Take a published trick from another book and put it in your book, claiming that you worked out a method apparently based on hearing a description of the effect. Change the name of the effect, change the identities of the principal cards used, then allude to somebody nobody knows.

Example One: On p. 32 of Close-up Card Magic is an effect titled “Aces Wild” which is identical to “Four Of A Kind” from Inner Secrets Of Card Magic (1959), p.19. Dai Vernon’s method uses Queens and excellent misdirection. Lorayne substituted Queens and credited the underlying idea to Ron Johnson. It is difficult to believe that Lorayne was ignorant of Vernon’s book, which was published two years prior to Close-up Card Magic.

Example Two: Lorayne published a routine called “The Equalizer” in Trend Setters (1990), p. 172, that is largely derived from Simon Aronson’s Shuffle-Bored (1980). Lorayne waited almost a decade and alludes to Aronson, but he rationalizes that he desired an impromptu version, subsequently created his own, and then felt justified in publishing it. When Lorayne’s version was published, Aronson noted that Lorayne’s solution was similar to what Aronson had already offered in “Controlled Shuffle-bored” in his original booklet. Aronson wrote and apprised Lorayne of this similarity. Lorayne acknowledged that he had never read Aronson’s original manuscript, hence claimed ignorance of Aronson’s impromptu, no-stack versions. If the situation was reversed, how would Lorayne have reacted?

Rule Seven: Take a routine that has been published many times, add your name to its title, then boldly reprint over and over until future generations of readers assume it is yours. If possible, include your version in a book sold to the public.

Example: Lorayne boldly published “Lorayne’s Poker Deal” in Hugard’s Magic Monthly (March, 1958). This boldness could be interpreted as ambitious audacity because Lorayne did not mention the three previously published versions in the same magazine. Although a man who made a living by his trained memory, Lorayne uses phrases like: “…the principle involved is probably older than me.” He then claimed the presentation (fast-talking patter), adding that he experimented and performed the trick for about fifteen years. If his claim is true, he began experimenting in 1943, a year after Marlo published Let’s See The Deck (1942). This is the booklet that explains the Gardner-Marlo Poker Deal, a precursor of the “Lorayne Poker Deal.”

Please consider these assertions: (1) The principle of a pick-up stack is older than the poker deals based on it and its originator is unknown. (2) Jean Hugard was the first to publish an application-presentation of this principle, using a pseudo-gambling approach. (3) The Gardner-Marlo Poker Routine established a prototypal routine. Its commercial approach inspired many copies and set the standard. (4) Lorayne expropriated most of this routine and publishing it in two of his books without credit.


The pilfered poker deal in question is an exploitation of what card cheats call a “slug”—a group of cards prearranged or already set for the purpose of cheating. Therefore, the notion of taking advantage of ready-made card arrangements is derived from the gaming table. Cheats call them pickup stacks.

Suppose a cheat is playing poker and he spots three high cards (Kings) among the face-up cards of the previous round. He could then pick up the “played cards” so that the Kings ended up fourth, eighth, and twelfth from the top of the deck. If such cards happened to be fortuitously and correctly positioned and no adjustments are necessary, the cheat can grin and proceed. With the Kings set, he simply performs a false shuffle, deals a four-handed game, and the Kings fall to him. This easy, no-stacking stack requires no run-ups or riffle-shuffle stacking. Such ready-made slugs are ready-made or can be easily arranged as discards and played cards are returned to the deck for the next round.

Cheats the cyclic nature of re-dealing cards, especially if the dealt cards are not mixed. In other words, if you deal five hands of poker, the cards are dealt in rotation. The first player gets the first, sixth, eleventh, sixteenth, and twenty-first cards of the top twenty-five-card stock. Suppose the fifth card in each player’s hand is part of a desired slug. If the five hands are replaced onto the talon without being disturbed, the slug-cards automatically fall into the fifth hand during the next round.

Marlo explained this concept in Let’s See The Deck (1942) and told me the basic idea came from the gaming table, but the first application was published in Card Manipulations – Series 5 (1936). Jean Hugard described “An Effective Poker Deal” on p. 108 of that booklet. He wrote that it is “an easy way to gain a reputation” for dealing good poker hands at will. He also chose the most impressive slug, a Royal Flush in any suit but Spades. It is previously placed on top and retained during an Overhand Jog Shuffle. The deck is handed to a spectator, who deals out five hands of poker. The magician shows each hand, then replaces them face down on the deck. Another Jog Shuffle is performed and the Royal-Flush is set. The magician deals out five hands and the fifth hand wins the money.

Marlo wrote in Let’s See The Deck:

“A couple of years ago [1940], Martin Gardner and I were in a restaurant in Chicago discussing magic effects. Among them were various poker deals and stacks. It was quite by accident that we stumbled onto the idea of stacking certain cards while apparently explaining to the audience how gamblers operate.”

So, the routine described in Marlo’s booklet became the influential paradigm for the next forty years.

These are salient aspects of the Gardner-Marlo Poker Routine: (1) The Kings are openly placed on the bottom of the deck as the Aces are secretly culled to the top. (2) Five hands of poker are dealt. (3) The magician openly demonstrates that a card cheat deals off the bottom of the deck during the second, third, fourth, and fifth rounds. (4) The fifth hand is shown to be four Kings. The Four-Ace slug is now set when the five hands are replaced on top of the talon. (5) The magician now claims to stack the deck. In reality, he performs a false shuffle and retains the top twenty-five cards. (6) He deals out five hands of poker, picks up and replaces the first four hands onto the talon, then reveals the four Aces in the fifth hand. The Kings-slug is now set on top for a climactic deal because they are fifth, tenth, fifteenth, and twentieth. (7) The magician asks the spectator to choose a hand from one to five. He performs another false shuffle. If the first hand is chosen, four cards are lost from the top. If the second one is picked, he loses three. If the third one is picked, he loses two. If the fourth hand is picked, he loses one. The fifth hand is pat.

Marlo did not explain how to lose these top cards. Cardmen assumed they were lost by Double Cutting or during Overhand or Riffle Shuffles. However, the basic procedure was tipped and the rest was left up to the reader. The cognoscenti took note of the Gardner-Marlo Poker Deal, but the size of the cognoscenti was small in the 40’s. How many magicians performed real or pseudo-gambling demonstrations during that time? Ten? Twenty? Four magicians immediately come to mind: John Scarne, Audley Walsh, Stewart James, and Russel J. Duck (Rusduck). Regardless, it is likely that the Gardner-Marlo Poker Routine was making the rounds when Jean Hugard published a thinly-disguised version in Hugard’s Magic Monthly (Volume IV – Number 6: November, 1946).

Hugard called it “Can You Deal A Good Poker Hand?” and did not credit or mention the Gardner-Marlo Poker Deal nor did he cite the one he published in Card Manipulations ten years earlier. Harry Lorayne is not the only one with amnesia. The concept cribbed by Hugard is identical to the Gardner-Marlo Poker Deal. More important, the presentation is the same. Hugard put four Kings on the bottom as he secretly set the Aces on top. The rest follows the Gardner-Marlo presentation and the only thing he added “for a brilliant finale” [Hugard] was to maneuver two Aces to the top and two to the bottom after the last round. He then disclosed the Aces by performing the Hofzinser Toss. (This is a double hand-to-hand toss that ends with each hand holding a pair of cards. See “The Four Eights,” pp. 37-38 in Kartenkunste.) Hugard remained consistent. He did not credit Hofzinser either.

Hugard apparently liked the trick. Four years later, the same routine surfaced in Hugard’s Magic Monthly (Volume VIII – Number 5: October, 1950), contributed by Clayton Rawson (The Great Merlini). It used the first two deals explained by Hugard and mentions “Can You Deal A Good Poker Hand” (although he left out the adjective “good”) and called his version “Poker Player’s Nightmare.” His method uses an extra, stacked half-deck and a pocket-switch to ring-in the slug. For the climax, the operator deals a Straight, Flush, Full House, and Four-of-a-Kind to his four opponents. He gets a Royal Flush. This is a logical extension, but the extensive preparation was probably off-putting to casual readers. Rawson knew how to correctly create a good plot and was willing to pay the price of a set-up.

Eight years later, Orville Meyer takes another crack at this poker deal in Hugard’s Magic Monthly (Volume XII – Number 3: August, 1954). Meyer credits his sources and wrote: “This trick has an interesting history with versions in Card Manipulations, the November 1946 Magic Monthly, Marlo’s Let See The Deck, and the Royal Road to Card Magic, by Hugard and Braue.” Meyer, an honorable man, gave credit when it was due. Hugard continued to omit previous references in Royal Road To Card Magic (1949), pp. 141-142.

Meyer’s “Poker Deal” is like the original Hugard routine in Card Manipulations. That is, he secretly set a Royal Flush and four indifferent cards of the same suit on top of the deck. When the Aces-Hand is placed on top, two are set to fill the Flush and Royal Flush. On the second deal, the operator gets the Royal Flush and the Flush falls into the fourth hand. Finally, Meyer performed an Overhand Shuffle to run the required number of cards off the top to effect the climax.

Considering everything published prior to 1958, what can Lorayne claim?

How do the various presentations differ?

Hugard’s initial presentation was ostensibly a demonstration of skill. The performer permits the spectator to deal some poker hands, producing average results. The performer then deals some hands and gets a Royal Flush. This suggests a high degree of (invisible) skill. Marlo took a slightly different tack. He pretended to share inside information on cheating techniques. He said, “Everyone is interested in how to win at cards, especially poker.” Lorayne uses the same approach: “Well, I can’t show you how to cheat! That would be unethical—but I can show you how I learned to cheat at Poker, if you’re interested.” If you ignore the unintentional comic line about the ethics of exposing unethical card cheats, what do you think of Lorayne’s code of silence when it comes to keeping the secrets of petty crooks?

One thing is certain: Lorayne borrows from the best. This is why he reprinted the Gardner-Marlo poker deal in Close-Up Card Magic and The Magic Book. Check out his last two sentences regarding this effect in Close-Up Card Magic:

“If you don’t get a round of applause, each time, when you’re through performing it for laymen—re-read this. You’re doing something wrong!”

Marlo’s words from Let’s See The Deck:

“Take your bow and the audience will applaud. If they don’t —give up card magic.”

Rule Eight: When you expropriate a move, make sure that it was published in an obscure or out-of-print book or is not published at all. Regardless of what anyone says to the contrary, claim that you devised it on your own. If that does not work, explain that your version is fully finessed and is therefore different.

Example: The Lorayne Force, HaLo Cut, Illogical Double Lift, Epitome Location, and the Ultra Move. Let’s start off with the Ultra Move, which Lorayne published in Afterthoughts (1975), claiming that he had been doing this move for a long time and was responsible for perfecting it.

This move dates back to Nouvelle Magie Blanche Devoilee (1854) and was described as a one-handed top change credited to Ponsin. Another reference, pointed out by John Braun, is Magic Without Apparatus by Camille Gaultier, p. 215. There the sleight is attributed to a conjurer by the name of M. Moreau. It is also mentioned in The Secrets of Conjuring and Magic, p. 186, by Robert Houdin. Finally, Arthur Buckley published a version in Card Control (1940), calling it “A Different Top Change: Mass Hypnotism” (p. 88).

Lorayne was probably unaware of the early references; however, he admitted being told about the Buckley reference. (Told about, not taught.) He insists that the move “is similar, but not the same”…whatever that means? To prove that he knew about the mechanics, he points out how he used it as a flourish in the Ambitious Card routine published in Close-up Card Magic (pp. 55-56). In a letter written by T. Nelson Downs to Eddie “Tex” McGuire in 1924, Downs writes in conjunction with the Fourth Method of a routine titled, “T.N.D. Card That Always Comes To The Top”:

Requires considerable skill and is only acquired by a great amount of practice. It’s a single-handed Top Change. To accomplish this Top Change, pack is held in palm in position for dealing: thumb is on top of pack, little finger at bottom end of pack and the first finger at the top end as if to deal the top card off the side. You tilt the pack up and push top card over about two-thirds or three-fourths the way off side of pack, at the same time tilting pack up to show top card. Saying “Is this your card?” the top card is balanced between the index and little finger which act as a pivot. At the same time the rear part of the thumb pulls back the second card and performer lets the top card drop down behind and UNDER second card in lowering the hand.

Since this move has been published in many sources, why does Harry continue to call it his Ultra Move?

Derek Dingle showed the Halo Cut to Lorayne, who saw its flexible applicability. He admitted to Richard Kaufman that Dingle showed him the move. Since there is no documentation or Lorayne was the only one to publish and name the move, it becomes his by default.

The Illogical Double Lift has an interesting background.

Lorayne claimed that he came up with a way to switch a card, then published “The Illogical Double Lift” in Quantum Leaps (1979).This happens to be a technical variation of the K. M. Move previously published in Marlo’s Magazine – Volume One (1976). Marlo informed Lorayne of his reinvention. He immediately wrote Marlo, arguing that his move was different (September 3, 1986):

As far as the “Latest KM Move” is concerned, I can’t agree with you at all. I do not remember the conversation with Barry Price, so let’s not concern ourselves with that. And, I do not have your Magazine #1, so can’t check that.

But, I have read the copy of the KM Move booklet you sent pretty carefully. In every case, you are left with a card in your right hand. My Illogical Double Lift does not do that at all. Please check it out in QUANTUM LEAPS (which, incidentally, although published in 1979, I had most of it written before 1976.) That’s not important. The point is that the Illogical Double Lift is different because the two cards go flush up against the deck, and the left thumb deals the rear card to the table. Nowhere is that done in the K.M. booklet. Now, if you teach it that way in your Magazine #1, I’d like to see it, and if so — I’ll be more than happy to mention it in APOCALYPSE.

I have checked Latest K.M. Move in Formula One Close-up again. I’m afraid I haven’t changed my mind. Suddenly, the left thumb deals the rear card to the table after the 2 cards are placed up against the (turning face up) deck. This is exactly my Illogical Double Lift. And, frankly, even if the same move had been in print before (and if it was, I haven’t seen it yet), the writer of Formula One could have mentioned QUANTUM LEAPS — I think that would have been the normal thing to do.

Please let me see your variation in your Magazine #1. Right now, I have to stand by the statement I made — put “Latest” alongside my “Illogical” and you would find it a chore to tell ’em apart.

Show me where I’m wrong Ed and, as usual, I will be more than happy to oblige you. As a matter of fact, if it’s that important to you, I’ll mention that they are slightly different, although I do not believe that. (I’m surprised that you don’t see it — that “Illogical” is different than KM, and “Latest” is exactly like “Illogical.”)

Let me know — I’m way ahead on issues, and if I do have to say something about this, I’d like to do it in the early part of next year.

I have been very busy, and it’s possible that I’ve read things too quickly. I may be wrong — I just don’t see it at the moment. I really don’t mind admitting that I’m wrong when I know that I definitely am. I don’t think so in this case.

P.S. And in all cases, in K.M. Move, a card (or cards) is stolen back onto the deck with the left fingers. This is not done in the Illogical Double Lift. Honestly, I think if an apology is due it’s due me! “Latest” in Formula One is really a rip-off of my “Illogical,” unless you can show me another source before “Illogical” appeared. If I’m wrong, I’ll certainly apologize in print.

Digression: If you are unfamiliar with the K.M. Move in question, its underlying concept is to secretly turn one card as you handled another one. Its strength lies in its simultaneity. Sometimes its mechanics result in a switch. A germane example is on page 4 of Marlo’s original K.M. Move booklet:

While the K.M. Move has been described with the top card face down, it can be done with the top card face up. Simply turn the top card face up, do a Double Lift of the cards back to back, go into the K.M. Move with Forward Fingering Action thus ending up with the face-up card still face-up in the right hand while at the same time secretly reversing the other card on top. By using the Reverse Fingering Action with the top card face up you will appear to have taken this face up card face down into the right hand when actually you will have righted the original face up card and end up with the exchanged card face down in right hand. It is actually illogical but looks all right because of the Wrist Turn to the left hand.

Marlo replied to Lorayne’s letter (September 8, 1986):


Since you have not seen Vol-I of the Magazine, I went out of my way to have pages 39 to 70 copied for you. This includes the K.M. Move in its various forms and applications. The opening method on page 39 is a description of the original handling because by this time the K.M. Move booklet was out of print. The method on pages 41 to 43 was devised in 1963 and between 1963 and 1970 was recorded by a half dozen magicians in their Notes. Over the years I came up with additional ideas and handlings and applications of this particular method. At present have more handlings and applications that have not been published.

So as you yourself pointed out, you would find it a chore to distinguish the difference between the Latest K.M. Move and the Illogical Double Lift.

After you have read the enclosed 39 to 70 pages on the K. M. Move, I will let you decide how you wish to proceed in this matter without causing yourself any undue embarrassment with your readers of APOCALYPSE.

Meantime, wishing you continued success with all your projects and the best to you–


Lorayne replied to this letter on September 11, 1986:

Hi Ed:

I was hoping that Randy Wakeman would call you before you went through the trouble of making copies, etc. I’d written to him — because he sent me a variation of the ace-cutting routine, which I’ll run in Apocalypse when I can and mentioned the Latest KM Move. In the meantime, I had someone check Magazine #1 for me.

Well, as soon as that person started to read page 41 to me, I said — “That’s it – stop; Eddie is right.”

Lorayne kept his word and mentioned the confusion in Apocalypse, but printing apologies, corrections, and errata does not eliminate confusion for future readers or students. The original books and articles initially causing confusion and misunderstanding are not altered or amended. Anyone reading them receives the same misinformation.

Rule Nine: When you want to obtain credit for a principle, give it a name and then write a booklet that expropriates ideas, finesses, and methods from others so that informed magicians will remember only the booklet and the name of the principle. This is the Overshadowing Tactic.

Lorayne published a booklet called The Epitome Location in 1976. He writes: “This is all based on an idea that has intrigued me since childhood. It is probably older than you and me.” He is right about that. The principle of Card Counting dates back to Hooper’s Rational Recreations (1744), so it is very old. Lorayne only mentions Outs, Precautions, and Challenges and omits references by Joe Berg, Martin Gardner, Satya Ranjan Roy, Kunard, and Ken Beale. In fact, one of the best ideas in the book is called “Twice As Fast,” (p. 21) which Lorayne writes is “a major breakthrough.” Ken Beale published this concept in Ibidem #2.

The Rules of Expropriation and Reformulation have been consciously and unconsciously used by many magicians throughout history, including Vernon and Marlo. Because Marlo published an incredible number of tricks, methods, and sleights, he was constantly accused of stealing tricks and ideas. Vernon, on the other hand, did not care about giving or receiving credits. If you study Marlo’s writings, you will find that he was usually careful about crediting others while clarifying his own claims. Over the years, he credited hundreds of other creative magicians. He was, in fact, particularly precise about making distinctions when the provenance was murky or moot. Lorayne’s case is different because when he is challenged, he becomes contentious and argumentative about anything that does not support his case or cause. Any inaccurate claims by anyone should be exposed, documented, and the record, clarified. Lorayne’s culpability is well-known to colleagues who know where the bones are buried and to scholars who have conscientiously studied the literature. As a major player and contributor to our literature, Lorayne should acknowledge his influences and confess to points of inspiration. When and where previous sources are cited, he should forthrightly acknowledge them. He should pay homage to each and every precursor, especially those he knows about. When others are pointed out to him, he should add them to his list.

The dry, dusty dormancy of our literature holds most, if not all, of the answers and truths. Creative cardmen who contribute to it should be accountable and know much about the provenance of our tricks, sleights, and ideas. Moreover, they should be willing to address, when confronted, any and all challenges to what is overlooked and omitted in rational, responsible ways. To act otherwise is a potentially perilous course of action. It engenders suspicious speculation and unsympathetic censure, casting a shadow over everything else, including claims that are otherwise legitimate and uncontaminated.

This article was originally planned to be published in The Looking Glass. Richard Kaufman and I discussed the pros and cons of publishing it in Genii or Facsimile. Friends dissuaded Richard from publishing it. I’m sure Harry, providing he reads it, will be exceptionally displeased. Part of me hope that he will take the high road. The cynic in me expects him to counter-attack. Hence, the negative beat goes on…

“Half A Headache” was published in Ibidem #2 (August, 1955) and later in Richard Kaufman’s Ibidem – Volume 1 (1993), p. 21.

Short and sharp..

With the removal of an excellent blog by Andrew, and its posting history relegated to the whims of the ‘Wayback’ Internet archive, an article by the real Mr Jon Racherbaumer that outlines just how much of a bastard some people can be, is no longer available.

Unless someone had saved it somewhere, it would only be accessible by chance, and if you knew what to look for.

Who wants to read it?


Why most magicians fucking suck..

First off, a quick note and thank you. Tyler Wilson recently contacted me to clarify a reference for ‘In Between’ from Mike Kociolek’s notes. The well known ‘Spectator does a trick’ from Al Leech is pre-dated in print by a German book titled ‘Ein Speil Karten’ (translated, ‘A Deck of Cards’) back in 1853, in an effect titled Predestination. Many thanks to Tyler, and props to bringing this reference to attention.

Second, a personal message to Tyler. You combo cuss-words like a toothless whore in space. Stay golden, pony boy.

And now, onto the feature presentation…..

I hate every single one of you. Except Tyler. And Justin. And the Mule. And Doug. And a few other people. BUT THAT’S IT.The reason I hate you people so fucking much is because 99% of magicians are generally sycophants, or self-obsessed assholes.

And don’t you guys go nicely together?

For the sycophants, it seems we’ve all become prissy bitches, and people adopt this as the ‘normal’ way, i.e. being polite. People aren’t honest or brutal enough, especially when magic needs constant feedback from the audience and other magicians to say what was good and bad. I’ve seen people fuck up the easiest sleights, perform some of the shittest effects and do the most trivial things and yet people still give them a pat on the back and tell them it’s awesome.

Absolute fucking bullshit.

It’s not. They’re just being nice and want to hear that reciprocated. I’ve barely met or spoken to any magicians who openly state an opinion with a valid judgement that goes against the norm.

Don’t even get me started on everyone’s favourite re-writing-history-because-I-can stupid son of a bitch… (it’s me). Give credit where credit is due, but do not disregard shortcomings and bad magic because of someone’s status. I am the epitome (pun) of self-obsessed cockheads. The vile opinion that spews from my mouth is supported only by my ego, not by fact or by good judgement. And the countless mindless sycophants lap it up and support it as history.

There’s a need for people to be more honest. Even as hobbyists, there are some people I know who are brutally honest, but they have the skills, the knowledge and the experience to back it up. And I will do the same. If there is an effect or move I don’t like, or you flash, or I can give you something to look up to improve what you’re doing, I will tell you if I respect you. And I mean well when I do it. Because if I don’t tell you, then you’re just performing a poorly constructed, poorly executed effect to a polite audience.

And at that point, the only person being deceived is you. And you’re deluding yourself into thinking you’re a good performer. And if you are self obsessed like me, then you are an absolute cunt.

Even today, a quick turn of phrase where someone attempts to compliment me or my work, I take it as an insult and immediately tell the person they’re a fucking moron and have no place in magic, or on this Earth and they shouldn’t have been shat into existence. Even when corrected, I won’t apologise. Even if you’re nuzzling up to my hairy bean-bag and calling me master, I will still tell you that you’re a piece of shit.

Because you all are pieces of shit in my eyes. I am the greatest thing to have ever happened to this planet, nay, this universe that we exist in. It is all because of me. You assholes don’t seem to understand how amazing I am and how important I am to everyone and everything.

In regards to lecturers or someone performing a show and being entertaining, you need to have something worthwhile for your audience. However, 99% of the people there are people who have no skill set and use magic simply as a social gathering. To prove a point of how different they are, they have actually asked for lecturers to ‘dumb down’ their effects and methods to suit them. I’ll say that again.

There are people with enough audacity to ask an internationally renowned performer to change his lecture, his ways and his methods to suit an audience of magicians who don’t have the time, patience or respect to sit, practice and learn something.

In the past few years, I’ve met some amazing magicians and performers, such as Bill Goodwin, Alfonso, David Williamson, Kostya Kimlat and John Armstrong, seen them lecture and do shows. For the lectures, each of them keeps the interest alive because you’re interested in the person, not just the magic. If you ever get a chance to see Williamson do a lecture, DO IT. Possibly one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen while learning good magic and good ideas. The reason why the above names stick out is because they don’t just perform their effects and explain them, they introduce themselves, you get to know them, they hook you in. Like most good magicians, they know what works and what doesn’t work in attracting your audience to be interested.

Most magicians suck because they either kiss ass or they’re trying to steal attention away from me. But then there are the good guys. The ones who can back up what they say with what they do.

If everyone was awesome, no one would be awesome. That’s why I think it’s better to be an underrated hero compared to being some fucking money grubbing, self obsessed shithead who can’t remember good manners and modesty.



Tell me what you really fucking think.


8 Effects and a Sleight + Tria; Good shit.

A while back, some fucking guy (who will be referred to lovingly from this point on as ‘Mr. Babycakes’) sent me a link, with material from a guy named Mike Kociolek. The link was sent with a message that just said ‘Some good shit’. Upon reading the two small manuscripts, I found some decent stuff in there. As with everything, it wasn’t all amazing, but there was a lot of thought put into the effects from both a method standpoint and from an effect standpoint.

… I’m talking like a fucking asskisser, aren’t I? Shit…. I’ll stop now..

There is some good stuff in these two booklets. While some of the shit I won’t do verbatim, they made me reconsider certain things and there were some new approaches to standard plots that gave me a chubby. I peed a little too.

Let’s start with the first manuscript,

‘8 Effects and a Sleight’

You Know Better
A handling of Fulves’ ‘Gemini Twins’ mixed with Elmsley’s ‘Face Your Brothers’, both having the same plot but being at opposite ends of the scale of hands-on to hands-off approaches. Each has it’s pros and cons, but if you look at them both overall, there’s only a shifting of the necessary handling to different points to achieve the effect. In the Elmsley one, you have three cards selected, lost, and the mates are found. In the Fulves handling, you have three cards given as ‘predictions’, which are then used to find the mates, which is a much more common practice. Mike’s approach uses bits and pieces from both effects and makes use of some subtleties to cancel out any suspicions while also setting yourself up for the next phase. Shit’s smart. The first run through had that fucking moment where you realise the next logical step method-wise is right fucking there. Justin knows what I’m talking about…

My current favourite handling for this effect is John Bannon’s ‘Trait Secrets’, p.182 from his book ‘Dear Mr Fantasy‘, which is itself based on Jack Carpenter’s ‘A Potent Presage’, p. 26 from his manuscript ‘The Expert’s Portfolio‘, which in turn is inspired by Allan Ackerman’s ‘My Favourite Gemini’, p.12 from his book ‘Las Vegas Kardma‘. Ain’t life grand? Bannon and Carpenter’s handlings also have a bit extra to the effect. Some people may say it’s unnecessary, but some people can also go fuck themselves. I think they’re worth reading. If you haven’t got any of Ackerman or Carpenter’s work, what the fuck have you been doing? Get to it.

The effect is straightforward; the Aces are left face up, cut into the middle of the deck and through a round of dealing are dealt to the spectator’s requested hand. There is some really excellent thinking going on here. The placements and ideas used are fucking smart and allow some very fair displays prior to dealing. For the final ace, Mike gives a few different ways to end it, depending on your skill set. If you haven’t got the cojones to learn a real centre deal but like gambling demonstrations and can do some decent false deals, then you will enjoy this.

My first exposure to pseudo-center dealing was through Laurie Ireland’s ‘Lessons in Dishonesty‘ manuscript. This is a very easily accessible and cheap resource (The grip for bottom deal explained is similar to one published in Gazzo/Britland’s ‘Phantoms of the Card Table‘ book, which is also another brilliant resource for magic history and some sleights). For other really interesting takes on this plot, I recommend looking into Michael Weber’s ‘A Spectator Named Kennedy’, p.7 in Penumbra issue 11, (Nov. 2009), Jack Carpenter’s ‘Center Deal Demo’, p.105 in ‘Modus Operandi‘ (1992) and Denis Behr’s multiple handlings in volumes 1 and 2 of his ‘Handcrafted Magic‘ books. Hi Denis! I FUCKING LOVE YOUR ARCHIVE,  IT’S AMAZING. WE SHOULD BE BROS.

This is a weird one. The basis for this effect is Pit Hartling’s ‘Triple Countdown’ from his excellent book ‘Card Fictions‘. My theory is that smart (amazing) assholes go bald when their brains go bullshit crazy (in a good way) and overheat, which causes hairlines to recede to save the brain. By this logic, Max Maven’s widows peak will soon be halfway down his ass crack if he keeps it up, and Pit should be totally hairless by mid next year (and I mean TOTALLY hairless). I won’t explain the effect.. because I fucking don’t feel like it. Plus, it would give up the devious shit you will learn if you come across this in future. It’s one of those effects where it’s half physical method, half subtlety and presentation. I know this sounds like bullshit psychobabble, but how you preface the effect to the audience allows for their own internal comprehension of the effect instead of outward acknowledgement. If you know this effect, you will understand exactly what I’m fucking talking about. It’s a Bro. John Hamman style approach to magical events, with the audience’s perception making up a good chunk of fuck-balls amazing for you.

Having been familiar with Pit’s handling, I read through and tried out the effect Mike explains and to be honest I feel like he has taken something and made it worse. Pit’s handling can be done off the cuff with any deck, while Mike’s does ask for some preparations. My biggest qualm with Mike’s version is that he asks for this something extra, yet the effect, method and subtleties have been cut down or not noted. Mike’s version only allows you to do this for two spectators rather than three, and he has not added anything groundbreaking to the method aside from the little extra bit of freedom for the end of the effect. Pit’s routine, while there is less freedom and more work, feels far more thought out and has some key points which would have improved Mike’s version. Also, he gives a few different handlings during the course of the explanation to get into the optimal situation, which pissed me off a bit. I would explain his favourite/most used handling and then put any variations at the end of the effect in a notes/comments section so you can keep track of what the fuck is going on.

Bold Collection
I like this. Collectors is one of those plots that I find interesting, but I fucking hate 99% of methods for it. Mike references Elmsley’s ‘One at a time Collectors’ from vol.1 of the Collected Works of Alex Elmsley. My first exposure to the Elmsley routine was the November 1974 issue of Pabular with the same method. The routine’s exact handling can be changed, but the sequence and displacements are brilliant. I recommend looking into this routine.

Mike’s routine uses a similar one-at-a-time collectors plot rather than the more standard all at once production of the selections. There is some devious shit going on too which makes me slightly moist in the crotch. I like the ideas he’s combined for this routine, however I feel like the overall method and ending could be tweaked slightly to make it more devious, have the same appearance but make it able to be scrutinised more. Without giving away the method, all I’m going to say is ‘Add in an extra random card’. If you know this routine, by adding this in and changing little of the method, you will have a much better end display while maintaining the awesome routine ideas.

I did have a slight issue with this routine though, and that was just surrounding how to handle the situation the effect puts you in, similar to the previous effect. Pit goes into details to cover any discrepancies and pro-actively sort things out while Mike gives only a little advice/direction, which means if you’re not used to performing with these kinds of subtleties, you will REALLY need to think before using them to ensure you aren’t going to fuck it up by being an idiot and overstating/understating something. While some good ideas happen off the cuff, these are some things that you’ll need to understand properly before you try them out or you will look like the dumber than Paul Gordon trying to claim originality. Which he still does, for some fucking reason.

Plan B
Three spectators each peek at a card and the deck is shuffled. The performer tries to ‘read’ their poker faces and shows each of them a small portion of the deck to see if their selection is there. Each spectator is given the portion of the deck shown to them. At this point, all three spectator’s will say they didn’t see their selections in the cards they were shown. The magician has royally fucked up, but is able to fix it with each of the selections now being found reversed in the packets they were given just moments before.

The effect is simple, i.e. the magician fucks up and makes good, and it has a lot of capacity for good interactions with the audience. The only bad things I have to say is that the method while it’s pretty good, can be tweaked slightly. For example, the first and second selections, you can use the first part of Aronson’s ‘Head over Heels’ move. This allows for a cleaner show of these packets, as well as being identical in appearance to Mike’s published method.

Also, I feel that the idea of ‘reading’ people as a plot point can be tweaked, such as asking people to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ if they saw their card, and they can either lie or tell the truth. This adds another mini-effect before the conclusion because you know whether they’re bullshitting you or telling the truth. This may be just me, but it’s my opinion WHICH IS FUCKING FACT SO DON’T TELL ME I’M WRONG!!@@@!:!@:@

In Between
The basis for the plot of this effect is messy, but here I go….

The most commonly known handling is Al Leech’s ‘The Spectator does a Trick’ in his booklet ‘Cardmanship’ published in 1959. The earliest reference I’ve been given (by the Demi-god Tyler Wilson) is in a book titled ‘Ein Speil Karten’ (translated, ‘A Deck of Cards’) back in 1853, in an effect titled Predestination. Since then, it’s been more commonly known as Daryl’s ‘Untouched’, and has spawned some excellent variations using a similar plot but different methods, such as John Guastaferro’s ‘Twist of Fate’ in TFD 2012 lecture notes, Simon Aronsons’ ‘Decipher’ in ‘Try the Impossible‘, Rich Avile’s ‘Pocket Protectors’ in ‘Above the Fold‘ and Michael Closes’ ‘Guatemalan Miracle‘.

The reason I mention Mike Closes’ effect is because this strikes me as being something that would be more accessible to most people compared to Mike Kociolek’s handling. In the original effect, two cards are selected by a spectator and the combination of the value of one card (Eight), and the suit of the other card (Hearts) make up the identity which’creates’ the prediction/ selection (Eight of Hearts). In Mike K’s handling, the two cards are put into the deck face up, shuffled and they end up sandwiching the card they make up.

I will say that the requirements for the method may make a lot of people not give a fuck, but the possibilities with the method are better; the selection process of the two cards used during the effect is very open and fair. Regardless of the choices they make, the effect will be the same each time. Read this, give it a run through and see if it’s your kind of thing. I like the idea, but didn’t like the requirements. Also, read into Simon Aronson’s version for some very interesting presentational ideas for this which you could apply to this style of effect.

In Oil, Under Water
An Oil and Water effect that’s actually really good. Look up the one in Goodwin’s ‘Up In Smoke’ notes for Larry Jennings that I mentioned in the ‘Cardmagic’ review. Shit’s insane. For Mike’s handling, it has a single phase separation and a single mixing phase. It’s not too long and not too short. The cards are mixed in a very Tamariz influenced display, and then are shown to have separated. Oil and Water is one of those plots where you’re either doing a miracle or shitting yourself through the bed; there’s no middle ground. It’s either amazing or boring, and it’s usually the magician’s fault, not the effect’s fault. If you’re into Oil and Water, have a look at this one.

If you’re familiar with Stewart James’ ‘Miraskill’ effect, you’ll know how this turns out. Mike takes the ‘Miraskill’ principle and adds in some other ideas to make the effect have a more hands off approach during the effect. I personally feel that the changes added, while interesting, are not groundbreaking. If you currently do a version of the ‘Miraskill’ plot, see if any of this sparks any interest. For me, I’ll just stick with John Bannon’s awesome handling.

MK Simple Shift Variation
I like efficient moves. Mike’s variation of a fairly simple move is too involved and requires a lot of fiddling and thinking to achieve the move. While it is not a technically difficult move, it is an awkward move to perform without looking at your hands, and even then, the needed actions to achieve the desired position aren’t the most fluid or appealing. I am all for using subtlety over direct actions where the situation calls for it and vice versa, but in this case, the sequence of needed actions is drawn out and awkward. While it is an efficient means of doing a multiple shift, it is not the best one. I could suggest a handling that would use similar ideas but achieve it in a less awkward way, but I have been requested by it’s creator to not share it.

And now, for a brief intermission and a word from our sponsors…


Welcome back. I hope you peed.

Now, let’s take a look at the second set of notes,


A re-working of the ‘Princess Card Trick’, taking on similarities to Larry Jennings’ and Gordon Bean’s ‘Limited Edition/New Limited Edition’, and David Regal’s ‘Unlimited Edition’. Everyone knows the slutty card trick that is the ‘Princess Card Trick’. It’s been done in books, on TV, in chain emails and even some websites.  According to ‘Matahma’ magazine, Henry Hardin receives the earliest credit, publishing an ad in December of 1903, and then popularised by Nate Leipzig. If you know of an earlier credit, please let me know.

If you have no idea what the ‘Princess Card trick’ is, get the fuck out of here. Yes. You. Go on. We’re all waiting….. Ok, good, I fucking hate people like that. Mike’s handling has the mentally selected card have a blank face, as in Regal’s handling, but the issue that Mr. Babycakes pointed out was that the use of Marlo’s Retention change drew too much attention, and so could be substituted, and still be just as deceptive, such as using the Jinx switch. The overall effect would stay the same, but the method would not have any strange moments.

Future Presentation
A really nice packet effect, closely related to Max Maven’s ‘B’wave’ and Karl Fulves’ ‘Red Blues’ effect (‘The Chronicles’, no. 13). Four cards are in the card box. Spectator selects one of the Aces, which is found to be the only face up card in the box. The other three cards are found to be the same selected Ace. All four cards then turn into another card, such as the Joker. There’s some really nice ideas in here which can be taken and applied elsewhere.  Mr Babycakes sent me this video of the switch used in the effect, which in theory can be cut down to only two cards and used in other effects. The switch is credited to a German magician named Gerd Winkler, who dubbed it the ‘Winkler Switch’. I like this routine because of logical conclusion when the cards are replaced back in the box. The effect feels like it comes full circle, however, Mr Babycakes disagreed and felt that the purity of the effect was tampered with because the amazing result of the prediction is then overshadowed by the other aces changing to the selected Ace and then to four entirely different cards.

An effect using Tarot cards. The best (ever) Tarot card effect has been done by my good friend, R. Jacherbaumer and involves the greatest pun of all time. Nothing will ever beat this. Late night sessions have proved this, and even a FISM winning magician loved it.

For Mike’s routine, the effect borrows the key principle from David Regals’ ‘Journey to Love’ in ‘Constant Fooling vol. 2’, and adds in a process that allows you to shade the underlying principle while being able to have the same outcome. I have to say that it seems a bit involved, but after reading through the method a few times, it’s very simple and straightforward. The amount of mental work is minuscule, and as long as you’re familiar with the Tarot deck and comfortable with the procedure, it is doable. That being said, it uses fucking Tarot cards so 99% of you may disregard this because of the association of the Occult or Bizarre. I fucking hate Bizarre magic, but it is possible for serious performers to use Tarot cards and other themed items properly, and tastefully (or even comedically). Think about it. Also, Mr. Babycakes felt that the start of this effect reminded him of a Paul Vigil item. Remember that name. More to come about Paul soon.

So, what’s the verdict on these two small sets of notes?

‘8 Effects and A Sleight’ is available as either a PDF or as a hardcopy. It’s $20 for the PDF and $28 for the softcover, and it’s for you to decide if you’d want a physical copy or a digital one. The graphics, production quality and illustrations are excellent, but there were some points where the writeup went off on a tangent or there were chunks of text which could have been re-worded to make more sense of what was going on.

‘Tria’ is a smaller, but equally well produced PDF only set of notes and is available for free here as of December 5th 2012, courtesy of Mike.

But because there are some fucking awesome ideas and effects in these, they’re good shit. Go get them.

Now, fuck off and let me sleep.


P.S. I, in no way, shape or form, endorse I fucking hate them for how they have treated some people, and refuse to give them a recommendation. The historically edited (censored) version of Pabular Magazine, and bullshit handling of properties of other magicians done by the late Martin Breese and supported now by is fucking horrible. Shame on you fucking people.

Just a quick one…

Just a heads up, Rich Aviles’ is having free US shipping on all DVDs during December 2012, and a flat $5 shipping rate for anywhere else in the world.

You know what that means?

Time to get Doug Conn’s ‘Built to Last‘. There is some excellent material in there, as well as some great points and theories. It’s badass.

Also, it’s Doug Conn.. I mean. Come on. He looks like Freddie Krueger and he’s awesome. I want to kiss his bald head. In a totally hetero way.


Now, excuse me while go back to re-writing history to suit my needs,


With old age comes the ability to fuck with everyone

lh99% of the shit I publish is someone else’s, but because I’m old I can feign forgetfulness.. HAHAHA FUCK YOU ALL, I NEVER FORGET.

If you doubt my word, you can go fuck a gaggle of geese.


P.S. More to come soon. I just have better things to do than think about appeasing you peasants.