Fraser Parker - MOOL

Copyright © 2016 Fraser Parker. Intuition Publishing MOOL What follows is a way to perform a billet-less name guess with complete accuracy. This is something I have had in my notebooks for quite a while as a solution and is something I will use whenever I feel I need the guess to be nailed on but don't want to use a billet. It uses a deck of cards but what is beautiful about this method is the cards become disassociated from the effect during the performance. They are used indirectly and in a way that suggests to the audience a more metaphysical process is being utilized as opposed to the mechanical way in which they will be seen to be used by the spectator. It will appear as if you simply get the spectator to focus on a card in order to give them a reading and then using a different

unrelated process are also able to read and guess the name of a person they are thinking of. The name guess appears to be completely unrelated to the cards in terms of direct process and is therefore seen to be a stand alone trick or effect to the audience. The participant having a slightly different view of what takes place will still be fooled and have no idea how you were able to guess the thought of name. The first thing I do when introducing a deck of cards into a performance is to justify their use by setting the correct context for their use. I say something along the lines of, “I'm not very good at shuffling or handling cards. I use these a similar way a psychic might – as a way of carrying around fifty two different symbols – which can be used to give

readings”. This scripting lets the audience members know that you are not planning on performing card tricks – something they will usually associate with a deck of cards and a performer right away, if you don't address this issue. It also sets up the idea that what you are going to do is similar to that of a psychic or may be real in some way and reframes a deck of cards as an esoteric tool for giving readings. I now use a line from my mentor Kenton. “The playing cards people take out of the deck tell us specific things about their personality characteristics and traits”. This is one of the ways Kenton approaches using playing cards to give readings. This allows me to force a specific playing card and number to use later on in the name guess process without it ever becoming apparent to

the audience that this is what I am doing. It will appear I simply have the spectator focus on a card in order for me to better read them as a person when giving the reading that goes along with the name guess. Here I use the “Drop Force” by Eddie Fetcher as a way to force a specific playing card on the participant. It doesn't matter which force you use here as long as it appears as “hands off” as possible. The following force is a “timing force” which fits this requirement perfectly. It is a very open force and feels to the participant very fair as if they truly had a completely free choice as to which card they stopped on. To perform this force simply have the force card on top of the deck. Cut one third of the deck to the bottom of the deck and hold a break with your little finger. Now take off packets of cards from the larger block of cards above the break and place these either

on the table or the hand of the spectator whilst asking the spectator to call out “Stop!” at some point. Cut this larger block of cards three times timing it so that you will be cutting off the last of the block of cards above the break at the same time the spectator will feel compelled to call out “Stop!”. This is the classic “timing force”. If you practice and get used to the timing that works for you then you will find you will hardly ever miss this force. If they don't stop you on the third cut then continue in a smooth fashion and cut off half of the remaining deck. This is placed on the table or hand of the spectator using the same timing and “beat” used for the other cuts. They will now feel inclined to stop you due to the timing of the force and the fact you are nearly at the end of the deck and are running out of cards to cut to. Now it is a simple case of having the spectator take the top card from the tabled

packet as opposed to the card just cut to in order to ensure the force card comes into play. Have the spectator take the card they cut to and focus on it. It feels to the spectator as if they had complete control over where the deck was cut and therefore which card was chosen. This coupled with the fact the performer doesn't need to touch the cards any longer will convince the spectator the selection was completely fair. “Take the card and focus on it. I will look away. Now place the card face down in the deck and shuffle the cards as you allow this card to sink back into your subconscious mind”. This scripting indirectly tells the spectator to remember their card without actually having to say it. It also fits the premise of having the

spectator take out a card from the deck in order for you to better read them. They are now directed to place their card back and shuffle it into the deck. It is important everyone knows there is no way for you to know which card was taken out of the deck. To make sure this is clear I always make an effort to look away during the selection process as well as when the spectator is placing the card back in the deck. The spectator will now be focusing on the force card they apparently had a free choice of taking from the deck. I use the 2 of Hearts as my force card. The reason for this will become clear in a moment. “We can forget about the cards for now. I only got you to take a card for my benefit – really – just to help me read you better”.

This line is said as you place the deck in it's card box and place them away in your pocket. It will create the appearance that the cards and the selection are no longer important – in terms of any process which follows – other than the thought of card now in the subconscious of the participant being used in some metaphysical way for you to more accurately read the spectator. You are now free to perform the name guess seemingly unrelated to any of what has come before. It will appear as if what comes next is entirely prop-less and devoid of any mechanical process. I begin with the reading of the spectator. I will not give you my exact approach to giving readings as this is out of the scope of this smaller manuscript. However, one of the tools I always plan on using when giving a reading

is “Completely Cold” by Kenton. I may say something along the lines of, “I feel you have doubted yourself when it has come to making certain decisions recently”. I usually open my reading with a “stock line” or a statement that is likely to fit most people then I move into the “whisper” technique which makes the name guess work. This is an idea from my good friend Peter Turner and is known as his “Bob” principle. I use this in a very direct manner here without worrying too much about tying up the subsequent “Dual Reality” and differing perspectives my application of it creates. Peter has more work on this principle that makes this even more beautiful in it's application. He has ways to tie up the “whisper” in such a way, no one will ever want to ask what was whispered to the participant. Again, I don't feel this is entirely

necessary in this routine. “This is personal and just for you. It wouldn't make much sense to anyone else anyway – so promise me you won't tell anyone what I say to you next”. This covers the use of the whisper theatrically and makes it seem what you are about to tell the spectator is only meant for their ears – which it is. The only difference is this is not something personal relating to their life but is instead an instruction given only to them. They promise to not say what it is you tell them ahead of the whisper which is usually enough for them to not reveal what is whispered, later on. If they were to reveal what was said afterwards then it still won't matter as the few people they tell will still perceive the effect from the perspective of the spectator – which is good enough.

We just give ourselves the chance of a greater effect to be perceived using a whisper as cover to deliver the following instructions. Here I lean in and whisper. “Whatever number card you just looked at – I want you to jump forwards in the alphabet that amount of letters whenever I ask you to jump to a completely different letter of the alphabet, in a moment. Nod if you understand”. Lean out and check that they nod showing they understand the instruction then continue by saying. “So this makes sense to you?” It will appear to everyone else you are referring to whatever personal information you have just delivered to the spectator

whereas it is really a simple check they are following along with your instructions. If you notice any doubt in your spectator or they begin to speak then simply cut them off and lean in and give your instructions again. What these instructions do is set up a situation akin to “Pre Show” but with the “dirty” work being done in “real time” right in front of everyone. They will understand your instruction to mean they are to jump forwards in the alphabet the same amount of letters as the value of the card they took out of the deck previously. They will also know to do this whenever you tell them to “jump to a completely different letter of the alphabet”. This will help create the illusion the spectator will, in a moment, jump though the letters of the alphabet in a completely random fashion as opposed to jumping a few letters forwards from whatever letter they will be focusing on.

The reason I use the 2 of Hearts as my force card is so they will only need to jump forwards two letters. I considered using the ace so the spectator only needs to jump forwards one letter but due to the fact the ace can be considered as a high or low card I decided to take out any potential confusion that could arise from it's use and go with a two as the force card instead. If you still want to use the ace of Spades as your force card because you feel it will be more easily remembered by your participant – due to the fact it is a psychologically appealing card – then you can still do so. Simply state that aces are equivalent to the value of “one” before a card is selected out of the deck. The fact the spectator is only jumping forwards 2 letters will also help you to divine the correct letters as you perform the subsequent name guess. This will become

clearer in a moment. I now use an aspect of Peter Turner's “Confirmation” principle to subtly lead the spectator to think of a name. Instead of just asking the spectator to think of a name I claim to know there is someone who has been prevalent on their mind recently. This allows me to specify the sex of this person and therefore takes out the extra step of having to also guess whether it is a male or female name they are thinking of. It is also much more natural and allows for a smooth transition from reading the spectator to reading the thought of person. They will usually find someone who fits the criteria you set and who has been on their mind more than anyone else recently. If not then just push them to think of someone close to them who is of whatever sex you prefer to use. I prefer to guess male names as I find them

easier to peg in my culture. I therefore lead the spectator to a male name in the following way. “I feel with you there is a male person who has been on your mind quite a lot recently”. This usually works well with female spectators as the person they will think of will often be someone who they are involved in a relationship with in some way. For this reason, you may want to switch to guessing female names when working with a male spectator. I prefer to perform intuitive effects of this kind to female spectators so will usually be going for a male name at this point. “Can you think of who this is without saying their name?” They will respond with a “Yes”.

“Of course using playing cards to give a reading is only one type of Oracle. I want to use a Metaphysical Oracle that only exists in our minds”. This line creates the idea a completely unrelated process is now at work that is disconnected from the earlier playing card selection. “I want you to focus on the name of this person – imagine it written in front of you and focus on the first letter of the name”. I now pause for a second or two as I touch the spectator and make sure I gain eye contact with them before giving my next instruction. It is important they are properly focusing on what you say at this point, so that they don't miss the meaning of your words. “And now... (touch the spectator on their hand as you look them in the eye) jump to a completely different letter of the alphabet”.

Thanks to the previously whispered instructions the spectator will understand these words to mean they are to jump forwards the amount of letters dictated by whatever card they looked at previously – of course, this will be two letters due to the fact the force card they took out of the deck before was the 2 of Hearts. “Whatever letter you are on now. Can you give me a positive characteristic or trait of the person you are thinking of that begins with this letter?” This is a way of essentially getting the spectator to tell you the letter they are now on but instead of simply asking for the letter we do this indirectly by hiding it within the context of a “Metaphysical Oracle”. It appears you are using this process of jumping through letters of the alphabet to help the spectator better think of associations and characteristics and traits of the person they

have in mind. To the spectator you have used a random selection of a playing card in order to shift them away from the letters in the name an amount of letters you could not follow whereas to the audience this jumping through letters is completely random and unrelated to the previous card selection. In either case, it appears there is no way you could back-track from whatever letter the spectator ends up on to any of the letters in the thought of name. Naturally, when the spectator names out loud the characteristic or trait of this person, it secretly cues you into the first letter of the name. Say they name the following characteristic and personality trait. “Vacant”. This tells us that the letter they are now on is the letter “V” due to the fact the personality

trait they name begins with this letter. It is now a simple case for us to mentally back-track two letters of the alphabet, to arrive at what has to be the first letter of the thought of name – the letter “T”. We now have the first letter of the name and can proceed to get as many of the letters of the name as we wish using the same process. I prefer to only do this one more time as it allows me to get both a positive and negative personality characteristic or trait and I can usually guess the name from just the first two letters of the name when combining this information with the other standard tools we have at our disposal when guessing names prop-less – namely Michael Murray's “Cups” principle, Peter Turner's “Abbreviation Ploy” and Derren's “Repeat it Ploy”. “Now focus on the second letter in the name and just do the exact same thing again...

(look the spectator in the eye) jump to a completely different letter of the alphabet and this time give me a negative characteristic or trait that begins with this letter”. The important line here is “just do the exact same thing again”. It will remind the spectator they are to jump forwards in the alphabet the same way they did for the first letter and ensures they don't just jump randomly to a completely unrelated letter but instead jump forwards two letters. Say they name the following personality characteristic or trait. “Quirky”. We now know the second letter of the name is an “O”. Now all we have to do is add a little time misdirection and deliver a reading based on

the positive/ negative traits they give to us and then move onto the name guess. This is where a few of the other ploys usually used when guessing names prop-less come in handy. The first principle I use when going for the name guess is Peter Turner's “Abbreviation Ploy”. I simply state, “If you can abbreviate the name or think of it in it's simplest form then do so”. Here you can easily see when the spectator either thinks of the shorter name or struggles to do so and from this you know whether or not they are thinking of a longer or abbreviated version of the thought of name. This helps to narrow down any multiple names they could be thinking of – which share the same first two letters.

I always use Michael Murray's wonderful “Cups” principle to peg the amount of letters in the thought of name. I will not be tipping this technique in this manuscript as it is not mine to teach. However, if you read any of my other name guesses or invest in a copy of Michael's book “A Piece of My Mind” then you will be able to learn this principle, if you don't already know it. It is important to perform “Cups” after the previous “Abbreviation Ploy” otherwise the amount of letters would be thrown out. If you don't know “Cups” then you can just guess an amount of letters after having the spectator focus on the amount of letters in the name and if you are incorrect, simply ask for the amount from the spectator. You will often be close and asking for this smaller piece of information will not negatively impact on the effectiveness of the effect in any way due to the fact it is such a small part of the routine as a whole – and would not really help you

very much given that you apparently don't know any of the letters which make up the thought of name anyway. You will now usually only be down to a couple of possible names the spectator could be thinking of – if you haven't already narrowed it down to just one possible name. For example, we would know that the first and second letters where “T” and “O” respectively and that this is an abbreviated male name, three letters in length. We would now instantly know that the name they are thinking of is TOM. If instead, we were down to two possible names I would use a two way “Out” of some kind. I now use Peter Turner's “TWO way VERBAL OUT” taught in my prop-less star

sign guess “Seeing Signs” as my go to “Out” when performing prop-less. However, one “Out” I always have in the back of my mind that works just as effectively is the “Repeat it Ploy” I first learnt from Derren Brown in his book “Pure Effect”. What you do is essentially throw one of the names out and see if it hits. If they react on the name then you take the “Hit” otherwise you continue to repeat the name as an example of how you want them to focus on the name. Say the following words “I want you to repeat the name to yourself in your mind over and over. So this would be Josh”. And pause slightly after revealing one of the two possible names. If they react to the name then take the “Hit” and end the presentation there. If they don't react then simply continue

on as if you meant to provide the spectator with an example of how they are to focus on the name. “... Josh... Josh, for example”. Obviously you now know the spectator would be thinking of the name “John”. My good friend Ross Tayler says that perhaps for a name guess it would be better to employ the “Repeat it Ploy” with a letter from a specific position in each of the names that would tip to you which of the two possible names they are thinking of as opposed to repeating the entire name. This way if you “Miss” on the letter then the reveal will not be diluted as you haven't already revealed a similar name to the one they are thinking of but have only mentioned a specific letter. Therefore, the name reveal will appear to come out of nowhere and will have more impact. I tend to agree with Ross here.

So there you have it. A simple and easy way to perform a billet-less name guess with complete accuracy. I would like to just add that if you want to perform this in a set with other effects then you can disguise the use of a card force even further by having the spectator select a card early on during the course of another effect with cards and have them dismiss it in the following way. “Take a card out of the deck, remember it and show it to everyone whilst I look a way. In fact, I want to keep this personal between just us. Put that card back in the deck and take another one, so that only you see what this is. Place it back and shuffle the deck”. You would now perform the effect with the second selection and call back to the first card they looked at during the whisper later on when performing the name guess.

“Whatever number card you looked at first and showed everyone else at the very start of the performance...” I would typically use the Ace of Spades as the first force card when using this variation as this is a more memorable card and with therefore be less easily forgotten by the spectator during the course of another effect. Here it is important to tell the spectator right at the beginning of your performance that Aces can be considered as having a value of one. The idea of forcing one card and dismissing it only to call back to it later is that of my good friend Peter Turner and this ruse first appeared in my book “Memoria”. I hope you enjoy using this effect as much as myself and a few close friends have and that you actually go out and try it.

Please feel free to share this document with your friends. It is meant as a way of giving back to my fans as well as a way of making others aware of my work who are not already familiar with it. If you like what you read then you will no doubt love my other work which can be found on my website: www.fraserparker.co.uk Much of what is achieved here can be achieved entirely prop-less, without the need for a deck of cards. My upcoming work on this “Second Coming” is co-created with my good friend Ross Tayler and is we feel on the leading edge of the Modern prop-less approach and the furthest these ideas have ever been pushed in the history of Mentalism. His work can be found on his website: www.rosstaylermysteries.com To Pre Order “Second Coming” please clink the link: www.fraserparker.co.uk/secondcoming.htm