PERFECT ACAAN Revealed? - Penn & Teller FOOL US Emily Robinson-Hardy S10E19

Here's the original performance:
• Holy Grail of Magic Il...
Emily Robinson-Hardy performs an outstanding version of the Any Card at Any Number magic trick routine made famous by David Berglas. This performance must be one of the best, it fooled Penn and Teller! Here I will try and guess how I think it was achieved, I may be wrong or right, you let me know in the comments.
============================================================
Learn Easy Card Tricks with New Book from Amazon
Worldwide search for Totally Magic Card Tricks or
Click link for UK Amazon: amzn.to/2EyO1aA
============================================================
Check out the merchandise.
Please support our small channel and be part of the group.
Comments and Likes much appreciated.
Contact me directly via [e-mail]
#TotallyMagic

[@joeljoeljoel]

I agree the method is likely similar to this. Voice recognition embedded in the microphone could make things easier to pull off with less hand movement. Trigger voice recognition for the girl. The embedded processor determines the position from the recognized card and suit. Trigger the audio of the position when asking the gentleman. Having said that, I don’t see how this doesn’t cause the people on stage to be considered instant stooges since they are in on it by not reacting to what they know is the secret to the trick. Aren’t instant stooges against the rules of the show?

[@totallymagic]

You're absolutely right, I didn't think of that. With modern tech and voice recognition it would have been easy for it to recognize the words Six of Spades (maybe its why she asked her to confirm or Emily repeated it to ensure it was picked up?). Then the number 47 would have automatically been cued up ready for playback. Your idea seems more likely!

[@coolaun]

I know that pre-show work with spectators is forbidden, but I think instant stooging is allowed. I'm sure I've already seen acts on the show which depended on instant stooging.

[@PeteR-qp7yo]

The problem with this is that Penn and Teller explicitly say, and quite recently, that instant stooges are not allowed. Wouldn't the explanation here would make the gentleman in the trick an instant stooge? As he was not given a free choice but the audience was set to believe that he was. Having said that it does appear that the number spoken does not match his lips. Perhaps there is a loop hole in the rules here. Here's the recent other trick where Penn explicitly states "no instant stooges" which this trick by Hardy seems to copy in spirit: kzbin.info/www/bejne/babakqdmpZWcfLM

[@joeljoeljoel]

@@coolaun Interesting. I could def see allowing instant stooges because their unpredictability can actually make a trick even tougher to pull off.

[@joshuana514]

I would argue that it isn't stooging because the instructions that were given to the participants were clearly audible for the entire audience: "Dont' react to anything that is about to happen to you". That was a clue for us to pick up on, but we missed it, lol.

[@puckaway237]

The fact she told both of them not to show any reaction supports your solution. Also at the end she asks to rename the card she selected but she did not ask him to rename his number.; Good Job.

[@kenherrera2819]

that's what I noticed... the girl was able to say a few extra words, but he was not. I had also thought it strange when she instructed them not to react to anything.

[@Ephie_S]

Well done for the analysis of the routine. I immediately checked the synchronization between the guy's speech and the number 47 and you are right! He didn't say 47! Well done. I believe your analysis is correct.

[@totallymagic]

Cool, thanks!

[@timbaldwinmagic]

I think you’re spot on. I went and watched the performance, and the 47 does not match the way his lips were moving. Plus, it’s subtle, but he had a weird reaction right after he spoke, as if that’s not what he said. Great job working this one out.

[@timbaldwinmagic]

I’m not a lip reader, but it looks like he actually said 17.

[@TrinityX]

@@timbaldwinmagicbut what would of happened if they chose a single digit number? It’s very hard to disguise that.

[@crestfallenraven]

Right! I am blown away. What a great trick. Genius; would not have ever thought of this method.

[@DavidOlson-Magic]

It was a great trick. I was in the audience that day. MAGIC LIVE participants were given an easier way to get into the audience last year. What most of you DON'T know was, she messed up doing the trick. She stopped at the wrong number. She stopped a couple of cards early. They stopped the tapping, put a few cards back and started from that point. The editing is flawless. Looks like it went perfect. I don't believe that altered the trick but makes the idea that she had the deck memorized less likely. (Since she forgot the number.) So, entering the card into the mic, or an off-stage voice, would be evident, since she didn't know the number. Either way it was a great trick. After the show, I thought she had "cheated" somehow and it would never be aired. I even spoke to the young man (who picked the number) after the show, asked if he had spoken to her before, he said "No, the producers picked him." I guess I asked the WRONG question. Now after it aired, I knew she didn't "cheat" but still didn't think it was possible. I think the explanation here will allow me to sleep better.

[@gypsytarot333]

Wow thanks for sharing that unseen cut footage

[@ClipsEtAl]

Interesting, the producer spoke to him beforehand

[@williamhatfield1094]

I believe it's actually easier than you think... Several magicians in our local magic club got together and came up with a brilliant solution. She has an accomplice back stage, he has an identically set up deck and his own mic. After she asks the lady her card, the accomplice back stage quickly counts to that number, and just as the gentleman is asked to say his number the audio soundboard operator turns on the accomplice's mic and mutes the mic on stage. Only the accomplice's voice is heard, then the mic on stage is unmuted. Simple as that!

[@richardstokes1290]

Brilliant! I was completely fooled until you suggested this outrageously clever lateral thinking!

[@glyndavies]

Now I can sleep. Thank you!

[@crestfallenraven]

Right! Good lawd... genius. Would have never guessed this trick.

[@browneye1968]

😆

[@gvilsan35]

Other less technological solution is to put your friend into the theater sound cabin 😅

[@WallyJ2K]

I went back and watched him say his chosen number a few times. It seems like he says "17". Also, I noticed a little head tilt after he says his number, as someone would do if they were confused, like when another voice says 47 when you just said 17. Totally Magic, I think you're spot on!! Thanks for the video!

[@suhaibalkhaldi]

i think that he said 35 or any number ends with 5

[@asianconnection7701]

WRONG, she did the same exact trick at home with 2 random people with the cards being shuffle without a mic.

[@Paulie68000]

Bravo! That was a proper Sherlock Homes analysis! I think you hit the nail on the head - what a truly ingenious method. I guess there are quite a few ways of getting the correct number out - possibly someone off stage, especially if there isn't a traditional stack to be seen - say, they have a cue sheet for card to position. However that bit is done - the method is

[@eylesit9268]

Great to have this explanation! When I first watched this trick, I was stumped. All I could think of was that every card was a hi-tech device with an LED display that could be programmed remotely to display whatever card that was sent to it electronically. Then I thought that having 52 of these cards that looked perfecrtly like normal large cards would be super expensive, so I started thinking maybe there is one L:ED card, and maybe an assistamnt in the table that manages to position that LED card into the correct position in the desk. But this had too manby complications and I ended up getting lost in the weeds trying to guess how they would resolve all of those issues. Your explanation seems spot on!

[@bambulkomccloud3983]

You are 100% right. Additional points: - usually, when there are audience members involved in the trick, they are 'randomly selected' and already on stage at the start. I've never seen that the magician selects the audience members. So she could chose a guy where the recorded voice could roughly match (if he would have been 75, it would not have matched) - his lip movements don't match 47 - he never said anything else - he looks a bit confused directly afterwards - when she then says the number is 47, he has this big smile, which makes clear that he knows how it's done. However, now I have no idea why Penn and Teller were fooled by this. The unusual selection, and the fact that she used her own microphone, should have made it obvious for them.

[@garybartnik1509]

I believe you nailed it!! As i watched the performance last friday evening the first immediate clue i noticed was that she did not invite Pen and Teller onto the stage to be the volunteers!! Or since Teller doesn't speak when on stage as part of their gimmick, i thought why did Emily not have called Pen and the lovely Brook onto the stage?? Now through your thoughts on how you think it was done i can see it is because Pen's rather gravel pit voice would not have matched the male voice we heard from the gimmicked mic !!! Thank-you for your wonderful channel!! Gary in dreamland; have a nice dream!!! 🌟🌟🌟☁️🙂☁️👍👍🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟🍬🍬🍬☁️⏰☁️ dream!!

[@Ephie_S]

By the way, there is no problem programming the name of the card to its location according to a look up table, so Emily only had to record the name of the card that the lady said, and the software had already translated the name into the number, 47. For each name of a card there was a ready-made table of locations with a man's voice and Emily was only to activate the system that will play the number that has already been calculated in the background.

[@RobertBallMagician]

😊😊

[@NickvonZ]

You are the ACAAN Expert! "MEOW!" to L&L 😸 ❤😸

[@Ephie_S]

By the way, there is no problem programming the name of the card to its location according to a look up table, so Emily only had to record the name of the card that the lady said, and the software had already translated the name into the number, 47. For each name of a card there was a ready-made table of locations with a man's voice and Emily was only to activate the system that will play the number that has already been calculated in the background.

[@totallymagic]

Thanks

[@rickracine9758]

YES thank you , i actually comment on her channel how great this trick was but on her second vid posted channel i think a year ago cause for some reason no comments cannot be posted for some reason wasn't disable at this point but anyway i received a reply soon after about how it was done but by that time she disabled all her 2 vid comments so i want to also thank vince for replying oh ya i just subbed

[@Patiencelad]

Brilliant breakdown! Great job!

[@magicjack]

You're right, I noticed the moment she says "47" he gives a tini surprise reaction and the camera changed angles and he kind'a grins like maybe he didn't say that.

[@andrewsmith7543]

Good logic here. I was thinking that 47 was an odd choice for a spectator, since they have to think that maybe the cards will be counted down to that number, and that's a lot of tedious counting.

[@totallymagic]

That's correct. If you ask ANY professional magician they will say most people give a number less than 30 when asked for a position 1 to 52.

[@gypsytarot333]

Similar to when choosing a card out of a card fan . Very rarely do they even select lower than the immediate cards in front of them (+/- a few)

[@tobyfitzpatrick3914]

That's at least the 3rd time they've been fooled by technology (rather than sleight of hand)...

[@joshcryer]

I actually think they understood what happened, but they always give magicians with new technology or new props a trophy. It's what that gal from AU keeps winning, she keeps bringing new props to show off. If they don't *know* for sure how it was done they won't make the guess.

[@jimboerner3202]

You pegged 'er exactly. Looked like he said seventeen. He even reacted a bit when she said 47 (I believe she chose a big number to elongate the effect and add a bit of suspense); you can see him react like "That's not what I said!"

[@acockbur]

She didn't choose the number. It was fixed when the woman picked the six of spades. It was pure chance that that card was near the bottom of the deck.

[@Rayezor2112]

Yes, sirree, Bob! I watched that section several times and I heard him say 37! A few moments later, when she said, "...and Now, we are going to count to the 47th position...", he moves his head in that puzzled dog look, like he is thinking...WTF. I didn't say that! But he chose not to blow it for her and rat her out. He just let it go.

[@Uniquettt]

Excellent brake down on Emily Robinsons act with a well thought out very strong possibility for the method.Your Good friends circuit building skills proves the possibility of your theory. Well done

[@tubular618]

I agree the number 47 was overdubbed while the mic was muted. But it could have been done by a back stage assistant without needing a special mic.

[@SoberSoul]

Most wireless mics have a mute button or switch on the side or bottom.

[@DavidSherman1980]

The first time watching, I remember being a little surprised at the man's voice, thinking, "I didn't expect that voice from that guy!" But then not giving it a second thought afterwards. Now hearing your explanation, it's brilliant and fully explains why she told the guests not to react. (Which seemed odd for a simple card trick to have such a warning when to the audience nothing surprising or shocking actually ocurred throughout. It made me as a viewer think there would be some twist or surprise element to the performance which never really happened, since as an audience we expect the magician to be successful in presented act.) Great analysis of the performance!

[@chetcieliesz]

Very good as always you have come up with a great reveal on this one for sure.

[@hawkeye6156]

Great deduction as always.

[@JanForsterMentalist]

Totally agree! That was the solution I found also and came up with (almost straight away)… BTW, no real need for a very special mic, enough that you can mute it if you have a secret helper backstage speaking into a second mic… as long as he can see a bit what is going on…

[@loupasternak]

I caught this gimmick LIVE on first viewing. Guess years of watching P&T have honed my skillz. ;-) Surprised more people didnt catch it . Emily cut off comments on her video. I refrained from posting the gimmick there before she did that , but as you've already revealed it....

[@rickracine9758]

yap your right in fact i commented on her other vid she only had 2 vids on her channel and she disable both, just before that someone replied back to me releveling the trick but whats really strange is other then her performants on fool us you'll never see her in that entire episode 19 anywhere on the internet more over Penn daughter from an older episode was put in instead, my guess is P&T were pissed at her

[@bigutubefan2738]

@@rickracine9758 They were so pissed at her, they still provided her with a copy of the footage of her trick to upload? Sure.

[@gobrownstd54]

After rewatching it, his mouth, at least from the side view looks kinda like he says 47. But my guess is she picked 47 because 37 is a the number most pick when asked to pick between 1 and 50. So I believe he says 37 which is why it looks like he said 47. Also, he makes a weird move with his head directly after 47 is announced. So I do think you absolutely nailed how this was done. And as far as the electronics involved, theres a myriad of ways she could have triggered the number, that don't include having buttons on the microphone, other than cutting the mike when he speaks. But you could be right on her using the mike. Either way, BRAVO 👏👏👏

[@TrinityX]

I think you’re spot on Mark with Emily’s method. There also could have even been another helper with a radio Mike. The Rebecca method you mentioned! I also thought that was audio dubbing but later it was confirmed to me it wasn’t, so I re-visited it and found out it also could of been another very clever method which I’ve used myself. 👍😊👍

[@totallymagic]

Hi, I'd be interested in knowing who confirmed Rebecca's version didn't involve any post production audio edit! If we take her performance as genuine then Rebecca has real magical powers, LoL.

[@TrinityX]

@@totallymagic Martin T Hart replied to my comment, I mentioned dubbing and his response was dismissing this method. So then I realised that all Three in that video are stage magicians.

[@samwright738]

You souloution makes a lot of sense. Also the guys reaction saids it all. For witnesses such a miracle he does not look impressed at all. I have seen instant stooges on fool us before even a few times with Alison. So i don't believe instant stooging is against the rules. Very clever indeed

[@RobertBallMagician]

Mark, l believe you nailed it. I knew the deck was in some kind of stack. But this thing with the mike seems to be the logical explanation. Great deduction, Sherlock 😊👍👍😊👏👏👏😊🤘🤘🏆🏆

[@themagicbuzz5728]

I’d tend to agree but I was pretty sure P and T don’t allow instant stooges (like with a bone conduction sound device). This may be considered just this side of that lol.

[@rockford3943]

You're right. But is it stooging when she doesn't influence the spectator? She doesn't influence or control what he says, just what everyone hears. I believe the producers of the show know the method (they have the last word to decide if P&T have been fooled or not), and if it was considered stooging, the wouldn't have allowed the trick on the show, bc it is against the rules.

[@timq6224]

just went back to the original trick -- the guy did say "eight" and indeed flinched a bit when 47 came out.

[@Ambium]

I do think you are absolutely right in terms of the method (insta-stooge). There may be a different explanation for how the mans voice was played to pick the number. A few other factors: 1) Emily Robinson-Hardy is a stunt double that enjoys taking risks (like inst-stoogin someone on live TV). 2) She is upstage from the spectators, which is done to help mask their lips 3) The lip synch of the man does appear to be off (at least in the video I saw on youtube). 4) she gives this deep look to the guy when she says she had no say in the number, which is also true, it wasn't her it was a recorded voice. Good detective work here. Well done!

[@totallymagic]

I agree with your points you made too. Magicians and performers are good at controlling a situation on stage. I realize too that Penn & Teller don't allow a Stooge, but an inst-stooge is different.

[@rj_corvo]

I have to say.... At first I thought you brought up some pretty valid points..... Then I thought, "now he's really stretching or grasping at straws..." Then I finished the full video explanation.... Conclusion: My hat's off to you! That was a solid break down! I kicked myself for not noticing any of the details before watching this. Well done!

[@gareththomas78]

I agree , makes sense and would explain how this effect worked

[@MaierFlorian]

As a German I'm very used to lip synced translations, though I am pretty experienced in telling the difference if something is dubbed or not. Though it is hard as you don't see his mouth very good I'm 95% sure he said something different than we heared, so this method really sounds like the actual thing she did.

[@anthonyanglim7147]

Yep!! I Just watched it back, I think He Says 17 ! and he looked a bit surprised at hearing 47, she even gives him a look as she holds up her hand and continues with the trick. You can't see the girls face but whatever she said she had a small reaction at the 6 of spades as well. Fantastic!! That IS the Method! I Also agree that that is very close to crossing the line If not actually breaking the Rules of NO Stooges!!

[@bigutubefan2738]

As "Perfect ACAAN"s and "Holy Grail"s go, there is still room for improvement. But what makes this such a marvellous trick for Fool Us was Emily holding the curious retro hand mic throughout the performance (and the chat afterwards). Penn says the secrets behind tricks are often ugly. But the fact Emily was holding a giant clue the entire time would've really made him and Teller kick themselves.

[@tobyfitzpatrick3914]

As a side note, the 6 of Spades must be considered an unpopular card to pick. I'd say she ideally would have liked to count down to around 20 cards, where the 'popular' card choices would have been clustered...

[@grotgrusson5124]

Wouldn't the count as using instant stooge? The person on the stage are not in on the trick, but they act as it was their own words, not opponent against the word that was heard.

[@rockford3943]

Is it considered stooging when she doesn't influence the spectator? She doesn't influence or control what he says, just what everyone hears.

[@joeljoeljoel]

Yes. I’d really like to hear P&T’s thoughts on this. I can’t imagine the producers didn’t consider this when reviewing the trick. But I just can’t imagine how it was allowed unless there is more to the trick than we know. Or because the trick itself doesn’t fully rely on instant stooging.

[@thecommonmagician]

People have used the instant stooge method on the show before. That's not off-limits at all because it requires management of a real spectator. This, however, is not an instant stooge scenario. He was told not to react to whatever happened. He has made no choice to participate in the method. He has no clue what is going on and why it is happening... he only knows that he isn't supposed to react. I doubt very much that this is high-tech at all. I think it was just a guy patched into the sound system calling the number.

[@eylesit9268]

@@joeljoeljoel Penn talks about Emily's trick in the April 23 episode called "A Very Driven Driver" of the Penn's Sunday School podcaast (listen from about minute 46:45 onwards)

[@DeanPPower]

I will say it will count as instant stooge, but according to the video, it did not using instant stooge as it not allowed.

[@suiko2fan2]

Rewatched her clip (she turned comments off), but 1 can see at the moment he gives number, his lips don't line up with 47. Plus, she doesn't ask him any questions about any prearranged meetings like she does with the woman. She just goes right to the give me a number. And after the recorded 47 speaks, she puts up her hand as if to stay stop or don't, which he does and lets the trick go on.

[@totallymagic]

Yes, I think Emily is a great manipulator during her performance the way she addresses the guy, and as you say her hand gesture. Very clever trick.

[@ExplorinDoranRBrown]

She kills his reaction by saying her look at him, the “stop “ or whatever she said and the hand gesture to stop. She holds the microphone in a way that he is facing away from the camera. Whats weird is when I watched the trick on tv i thought the woman sounded weird and I noticed that her hair blocked her mouth. I thought, strange, that sounds like fake audio, then the woman confirmed the card, which had me thinking , what just happened?

[@stenlis]

The hand gesture is the key. It grabs the spectator's attention which prevents them from turning to the audience. She moves on immediately so there is no other opportunity for him to misreact. She's been well rehearsed.

[@magic_opi]

Great idea. This could have been how it went, taking into account that the spectator could possibly contradict.

[@MikeGervasi]

I think you nailed it. He DOES react slightly by tilting his head after the "47" as if to say "That was wierd"

[@joshuana514]

Absolutely brilliant! I went back and confirmed that this was in fact the case. With the sound off, looks like he said 17.

[@joebloggs1317]

I just watched the original back at .25 playback speed, and I wouldn't be surprised if both voices were dubbed. If you look at the reaction of the lass (even though she was asked to try not too) she smirked when she gave her choice and again when asked if she had been duped, and it appeared that his voice was out of sync with his lips.

[@wbjorkman]

I think you are right! When you watch the video and he says 47 you can see he looks a little surprised and she holds her hand up at him to keep quiet! Well done!!!

[@starnyan7207]

There was one other physical detail I've noticed since rewatching it that reveals this is her method. After he allegedly says "47", he does start to make a reaction and she holds her hand up to his face reminding him "don't react," which she didn't use that body language at all with the female. Interesting take on the instant stooge, and perhaps riskier since they aren't getting as clear of directions as other instant stooging can have...and all of it is done literally in front of Penn and Teller. Definitely a well performed trick!

[@eylesit9268]

Not only does the performer hold up her hand straight after he speaks, but she also quickly pulls the microphone away, further ensuring that guy doesn't try to object.

[@adrienriegel5008]

Amazing analysis.

[@NextGeneration492Theinte-mp7ho]

Ok this explains for me her tale about a previous time performing where the helpers were shocked & reacted. This was her coding to them not to react when they hear a different voice saying a number

[@maxpeeters8688]

It very much seems like you're spot-on with your analysis, there's just one issue I have. The contestants cannot lie when Penn is asking them questions, yet this was part of their conversation: Penn: _"You promise there's no pre-show?"_ Emily: _"Promise."_ Penn: _"And you promise that there's no stooge, right?"_ Emily: _"Correct."_ Penn: _"Because if this was pre-show, or there was a stooge, there is no trick. At all."_ Emily: _"Yep."_ Now, Penn & Teller make a distinction between stooges and instant stooges but still... If that's how the trick was done, she lied.

[@totallymagic]

Yes it does seem like a gray area... I guess she was correct in that there was no pre-show, and strictly speaking he was not a stooge, but just "played along" during the performance. Clever idea though!

[@bigutubefan2738]

She got P&T (and the vast majority of the viewers) to assume what they heard when the volunteer spoke, was what he actually said. She genuinely fooled them. Unfortunately she did not fool the guy right next to her, so I question if it really is a "Perfect ACAN" or a "Holy Grail", but huge credit to her nonetheless.

[@francisvandenheede7710]

A stooge is someone who is instructed to say or do something to make the trick work. Strictly spoken, the gentleman was free to say what he wanted. In this trick, an empty chair could be the stooge. Unfortunately, chairs don’t talk. What does the trick work is not the technology but, as always, perfect scripting, misdirection and audience management.

[@leechap3]

Fantastic!

[@DJboogiesounds]

This guy do say something. He says „Hey” at 2:35. Compare it to 3:44. Two different voices. :)

[@rugvedhalarnkar768]

Totally agree with these method 😮 the spectator reaction tells all

[@kleinpca]

Notice that the guy was not asked whether 47 was a free choice. That too supports this solution.

[@j.f.3542]

You're a genius ❤

[@Sebiki-dq8ud]

I do think it was done like you say, if you watch the original video carefully you can notice that after the man hears "forty seven" he leans his head as in surprise, and then he must have remembered that he shouldn't react at all.

[@mysticmarkthemagician5852]

Very interesting

[@donpodlas5546]

Wonderful observations! I do think that is the method. Otherwise, the trick as presented is impossible to perform unless you have knowledge of the position and card.

[@djdedan]

To support, she also said this was a real risky trick. In other words the dude could be like A HELLS NO!! And the trick would’ve been blown. She also never asked him:do you want to change that number???

[@totallymagic]

You're right it was risky, but many magicians use this "play along with me" on certain tricks. That's right too about not asking him to change the number, she didn't want to get into any dialog with him as she didn't want us to hear the sound of his own voice!

[@gypsytarot333]

She may have had a 2nd trick or alternative option to slide into if he didn't play along , idk how or what but there must have been some type of contingency plan

[@HughProf]

Interestingly, a couple of performers later, Nick Diffate also uses a handheld mic (+ mic stand).

[@mycroftsanchez901]

I wondered why she didn't ask them their names, I just thought it was an oversight, all but an unprofessional mistake but now you have explained the possible method it all falls into place. Another possible alternative to the recorded clip is a hidden assistant with a deck of cards in the same order just says the number when she mutes the mic?

[@NextGeneration492Theinte-mp7ho]

It really stood out her not asking names etc…the guy was not asked to repeat

[@tommy2cents492]

The extra large cards are also on purpose.... I think.... these are very inconvenient to shuffle...

[@bigutubefan2738]

And they're heavier, so they're harder to accidentally pick up two stuck together.

[@rodrigoffdsilva]

Man, you got it right. I watched her performance again and I noticed the guy made a slight move with his head like he was confused. Although, I'm not sure it's not a dub.

[@thereignofdando]

Amazing reveal. This trick puzzled me intensely, but you can actually clearly see he says something like 17, and then he kinda squirms when he hears something that isn’t what he said. She really drills him with eye contact and subtle reinforcement. Well solved!

[@huntinghenrietta2933]

Just seen this. We were there at the filming at the Rio. The man did say that number 47. Everyone was asking him afterwards, and he says he said 47... the lady also said 6 spades and we could hear this clearly... the mic was given to her after she walked on stage by a tech man...

[@lennon1252]

To you in the audience or sounded like he said 47, and he lied to you after the show to protect the secret. The way it was done was with an assistant backstage who has a wireless mic. She muted the mic on stage and the assistant said 47. This is totally legal as illusionist use assistants all the time that help them with the trick.

[@TaskSwitcherify]

As soon as you mentioned her microphone, I realized how the trick was done. And then I noticed the guy was surprised after speaking, so... 🙂

[@DMike92.]

Very clever (you & Emily ;-)

[@Hamstrakt]

Your method could certainly work but there can't be a stooge in her version. Penn clearly pointed out during their guess that there's no pre show and there's no stooge. She agreed. If there's an instant stooge, then she didn't fool them. It has to be something else.

[@markjones5843]

Shear brilliance from the young lady 😮 Sure your right as the guy doesn't clap or look amazed. She's a cool dude for being so daring

[@eljayr4669]

A very plausible solution but it really depends on the person who volunteers the number. If after the performer states the number and the volunteer says “that’s not what I said”, the trick is kaput. The performer must have a lot of faith in the volunteer.

[@martifingers]

Indeed. I believe the same principle has been used before on Fool Us, though.

[@k1ry4n]

That's why she instructed the volunteers NOT to react in any way. In a more informal context people would maybe react anyway, but in a TV show people tend to do what they are told for obvious reasons. And the show is recorded: they broadcast only what worked. She took a risk and it paid off.

[@andrewscarr8943]

Remember if he had made a comment, then he had no microphone to convey it. Emily’s microphone could have been highly directional. Also, Emily could have switched off the handheld mic, before putting it in front of him, because she was wearing an additional microphone.

[@jorn-jorenjorenson5028]

I guess she also looked at who she picked as 2nd volunteer, a good magician probably has some experience and intuition to pick someone who very likely immediately gets it and does not ruin the trick. Also, he makes a slight surprised head movement after he spoke and she instantly holds up her hand to him, like saying "please keep quiet". Btw, I did not spot that at all when watching the routine first. But I watched it again after seeing Mark's great video.

[@MortillaroCustoms]

I agree this is probably how it was done. What I bet you can't explain is how when my daughter and I picked a number 24 and a card 8 of spades she nailed it.

[@gobrownstd54]

As soonas you mentioned tge microphone I was like "Ohhhhhh shit" Brilliant job, I think you nailed it

[@JaredKMarkowitz]

Nailed it. Wow, Emily is so smart and so amazing! I want to see more from her!!!!!

[@whatwouldsaido]

Great breakdown! A couple things. Is it possible for some guy back stage to speak the number instead? Also regarding that guy: personally his looks and the voice didn't exactly line up in my mind. His lips seem off. Also after he finished saying the number while looking at her, he tilts his head to the side slightly as if communicating "Huh?"

[@maximem.ste-marie3578]

the mic not being a head set could be an excuse for the person talking. but after watching, the guy is clearly not saying 47, and if we listen really carefully, it's the robotic voice we hear all the time on the internet. It's just so short, we don't pay attention. but good point on the attached mic I think there is also an audio for the girl, it doesn't sound like her voice when we listen closely. Like other comments, you have to have faith in your participant. and like another said, wouldn't count as instant stooges ?

[@mnls0]

Regarding Rebecca's video, it looks like they dubbed the card not the number. What more happens is that she speaks out the card before revealing it. I have a suspicion how she did it, but it would be interesting if you could go back to it and check?

[@vnen]

I believe this might be less technological than that. She might have an assistant in the backstage with a mic. When she asks the spectator, she simply mutes her mic so his voice isn't captured, while the assistant says the number. Definitely it's not the gentleman saying it, because she never asks him to repeat the number or anything else, like she asks the lady to tell that it's free choice and such.

[@android1617]

Nice one man, think you nailed it. Can it be deemed a successful trick if a spectator immediately knows how it's done?

[@k1ry4n]

One or two spectators immediately know. Penn and Teller and the rest of the audience are fooled.

[@jorn-jorenjorenson5028]

I'd say the goal is to fool P&T, so no problems if the volunteers (or even the audience) know the secret.

[@FusionDeveloper]

Yes. They only have to fool Pen and Teller.

[@AlanHamiltonAudio]

I instantly knew something was up when she made a point of telling the two audience members not to react, and then with the conclusion of the trick they seemed very underwhelmed. To me, a trick like this gets into awfully fuzzy territory with the Instant Stooge rule of the show. I almost think it's worse in some ways than if there'd been a visual cue given to him to say "47". So I guess technically, he had free choice to say whatever he wanted... we just didn't actually get to hear HIM say it and we got to hear an entirely different person say something else (whether it was another person with a mic or a pre-recorded track). But the fact he had to bite his tongue, or be the stooge that gave the trick away, just seems to fly awfully close to the sun... and rules. I get Cris Angel vibes. To me, it doesn't seem much different than if a camera/video editing was used to make the trick work.

[@exit281]

the sound that was heard was strange...i guess u nailed it

[@stulewis6651]

A friend of mine thought the method was based on instant stooge, with the microphone placed so only the participant could hear it. Your analysis sounds more plausible. In any event, Rick Johnson's "too perfect" theory seems to apply here. When a trick seems to be impossible, an astute spectator will be able to come up with a solution. This trick, as performed, appears to be impossible.

[@Burkhawni_Pa]

This trick was performed by fooler Rebecca Herrera five years ago with two people. It was a trick invented by Martin T Hart

[@user-hg7rz5vz6x]

You’re absolutely right but i think only the man is an stooge because the woman talk 3 times answering emilys question and i believed that the deck was a stack deck and the number was played in the microphone.

[@magiclarry7688]

That is a totally reasonable solution. It sure fooled me.

[@McKMagic]

1:31 I swear thats Irelands Michelle O'Neill lol

[@oldschoolwarrior]

The fact that there was no comment about 47 being so far down seemed strange. Now it makes sense.

[@totallymagic]

Yes, I bet Emily hated it when she heard the lady say 6 of spades!!!! I'm guessing she had all the most popular and common cards between 10 and 30, such as Queen of Hearts! Magicians hate high numbers as it takes forever to deal down that far!! LoL

[@Berzerkules]

I’ll need to see her performance again but I wouldn’t be surprised if you nailed the solution

[@mssm9495]

Yep. She primed and managed the two volunteers perfectly to set this up and prevent them from reacting. The side effect of this is that both volunteers knew exactly what happened and were not impressed. But it might also have been done by an off-stage assistant.

[@CaptainBollocks....]

I knew something was off about this trick, and the comments here confirmed my suspicions. I don't normally come to reveal channels, but since the comments were turned off on that video, I wanted to see what others thought. There is no such thing as a perfect trick in magic, according to P&T, because perfect tricks have no other way of doing it. I'm surprised they even gave her the trophy!

[@DadBodDrumming]

This was the perfect method for the show. Which is what it takes to fool people sometimes.

[@mjrauhal]

Sounds likely (and clever), but sounds also like it'd be uncomfortably skirting the stooge rules of the show (as I understand them). But, if so, that's really on the producers, not on her. She had her job and she did it.

[@totallymagic]

Absolutely right about the producers. They would have seen the routine during audition before she performed on stage, and decided it was ok.

[@TimUckun]

Looking at the video it doesn't look like she is manipulating any buttons on the mic but she does talk to the lady a little more to buy some time. Chances are the recording is selected remotely backstage by an assistant.

[@karlkellar8614]

I don't see how the Rebecca Herrera performance you refer to could have used a memorized deck because the deck was thoroughly shuffled multiple times. Of course, if dubbing were used, she could have changed both spectators' statements, but how is that magic? That's like saying Christopher Reeve was the greatest magician of all time because he flew in the Superman movies.

[@rsa365]

The giant cards are a nice excuse not to shuffle as well.

[@BillHustonPodcast]

Yes, I think you've got it, mate. But this means that the *producers* must be a part of the trick. How does this not violate the "no stooges" rule?

[@stephenbarrette610]

I think you are right. I saw the video performance earlier today and it was driving me nuts! The ‘Perfect ACAAN’ is obviously impossible or at least it’s 52! X 52! (52 factorial x 52 factorial - a number bigger than the number of atoms in the universe, just the factorial of 50 is 3.41 x 10 to the 64th power - that’s a very, very big number. Even shuffling a new deck six times means you have got a new order that has never been seen before, as in 52×51×50×49×48 et cetera,) So geeky maths stuff aside, I immediately wondered why she didn’t have a Lav mic and why the volunteers didn’t have mics. That has been standard practice on the show. (They stop recording, mic up the volunteers and then continue.) When the gentleman, who didn’t speak, apart from saying ‘his number’ heard what ‘he said’ he gave a wry smile, as in ‘ok I’ll say nothing’ and as you pointed out Emily said ‘please don’t react to your experiences’. Given it’s a TV show, maybe the gentleman felt under slight pressure not to say anything and to go along with the trick. Also the side angle of his face still doesn’t quite hide his lip movements for apparently saying ‘47.’ (The power of a magician on stage is extraordinary. I saw Derren Brown live with my son. He got selected to go on stage. Derren put his hand on my son’s shoulder, said something and my son, forgot the next four minutes and was part of an amazing trick.) The annoying thing is, as often happens on the Penn and Teller show, is the cutaways to close-ups of people so you don’t see the entire act from one point of view. So it is perfectly possible that she used a series of buttons to bring up a recording. Also the ‘male voice’ sounded a little odd. The stacked deck had to be unique, as certainly Teller would spot a Si Stebbins, Mnemonic, Aronson or Redford, etc. The ‘Berglas Effect’, named by Jon Racherbaumer, about the legendary David Berglas, (who sadly passed away last November aged 97) states: - The deck of cards is on view before the performance - Anyone can freely name a card - Any one can freely name a number - Anyone other than the performer counts down the cards So three out of the four criteria were met. I think your explanation is the most logical, but you might be wrong, but I can’t think of another explanation! There are no stooges or pre-show preps, the producers check that and know the method. However, full marks to Emily’s performance and Martin T Hart who devised the trick. I’m a little surprised Teller didn’t suss it, although it’s a little disingenuous to ‘overdub’ a volunteer. And thanks for your channel, really enjoy your content.

[@zjweele13]

Your math is wrong. 52! Is the number of different orders the deck can be in. But the used deck is only one of them. So all that needs to happen is out of 52 set the same position has to be picked twice. That is just 52 squared

[@Videogamewalkthrough]

Damn, she just gives that guy the eyes 😍 and he’s like “sure 47 anything you say”

[@martinjf467]

Would it not have been more likly for her to do the audio switch on both of the punters? That way she doesn't even need to memorise the stack.

[@Danny451]

👍👍