WhichHandFRASER

Which Hand – Fraser Parker
What follows is my ultimate solution to the which hand plot – performed,
without any need for gimmicks, electronics or props of any kind – except the
coin or object being hidden.

My entirely verbal and prop-less approach will allow you to perform a three
phase 'which hand' routine, flawlessly.

Each time a coin or other object is hidden by the spectator in one of their
hands, behind their back and then both fists are brought out in front of the
spectator and each time the
performer can correctly guess the hand that contains the object.

This is repeated three times in a row, with each of the phases building in
seeming difficulty.

What is beautiful about my approach is, you will appear to be using a
readings style of method in order to essential read the spectator and second
guess their actions, as opposed to applying psychology or having to play a
game of truth or liar where you apparently read their tells.

The good news is there are also no logical puzzles or anything obvious to
back-track.

I prefer a readings style presentation as I prefer to perform with the aesthetic
of a real psychic and dislike using the also fake, pretence that I am somehow
picking up on psychological cues or tells and using psychological profiling to
be able to predict outcome of behaviour – for me this is too scientific and
over explained in terms of presentation and will seem less magical to the
audience, for this reason.

I prefer to be vague with how it is I achieve the things I do and prefer to
leave behind more of a mystery.

I will being by explaining the third phase as this was the first and stand-alone
method I came up with that later became the climax of the routine. It is the
fairest looking in terms of the seeming complete freedom you give the
spectator to change hands. The other phases equally as devious, were
added afterwards to create the full routine.

Third Phase

If you wish this can be performed on its own and as you will see the basic
methodology behind it can be used for many other things other than just a
standard guessing of which hand contains an object.
As with most of my work it is the principles that is useful.

This began with me first attempting to finish something from my notebooks,
namely – the use of mental calculation or timing as a way to get a cue from
a spectator.
I remembered reading in one of Kenton's works about an old ruse where the
spectator would be instructed to multiply two different amounts of money by
a specific number and then tell you when they had done so. You would then
know which amount of money or denomination of coin was in each of their
hands due to how long it took the spectator to perform the maths.

As one of the sums would be slightly more difficult to perform due to the
numbers involved there would be a definite difference in the time it took the
spectator to make his or her calculation and this would tip which coin or
series of coins they
were focusing on.

I realized that instead of using mathematics other options would be viable
such as getting the spectator to visualize something taking place in real time
and then to visualize something that takes a little longer to perform, mentally
as a way of marking out a specific thought that each of these visualizations
would be linked to.

Looking at older mathematics based magic books for inspiration, I knew that
it didn't matter if you multiplied an odd number with an even or an odd
number, it would always
equal an even numbered total. This was played with a little and I had a nice
way to get which half of the year a spectator was born. Alas, this was too
mathematical in appearance and something I abandoned.

Then I realized if I was to multiply something by two this would be the same as
multiplying either an odd number by and even number or an even number
by an even number to always arrive at an even number. I would be able to
then say “double”
this number instead of having to provide a specific number odd or even for
the spectator to multiply.

Around the same time I was also looking into a different ruse found in one of
Jim Steinmeyer's books (Credit at the end of this book) which allowed you to
know where a coin ended up after the spectator had switched it back and
forth between their hands and amount of times. This was based on odd and
even lengths of words they would spell out letter for letter as they switch
hands and would ultimately leave the coin always in the same hand, no
matter which hand the coin started in.
All of a sudden everything fell into place. I realized that I could eliminate any
notion of mathematics in the mind of my audiences by changing my
language and making it even more indirect. Instead of asking them to think
of a specific number of
times to change the coin back and forth between their hands and then
asking them to double the number or to even “change the same amount of
times back and forth again” I could be even less direct and simply say,

“So you changed this a number of times … just do the exact same thing
again, so that this is random”.

And viola! I all of a sudden had a perfect solution to a verbal which hand.

I immediately video called my good friend Peter Turner and performed it. It
worked flawlessly! He suggested adding a line at the beginning to ensure the
spectator always follows along correctly. I then showed a few pros it at the
MINDS 5 convention and they loved it!

I remember Ian Rowland grinning like a child for ten minuets after it dawned
on him what was going on, as he marvelled at the simplicity of what had
fooled him.

I showed it to Michael Murray and he informed me that Manos Kartsakis had
already got there before me. Needless to say, Manos gave me full permission
to release my independently created version of this effect as he hadn't yet
published his thinking. In fact, as a bonus he has allowed his original thoughts
on this method to be released in this work for the first time and is shared here
as bonus material at the back of the
book.

I also later discovered that Ever Elizalde also created this method
independently and has published his thinking but was also gracious enough
to allow me to release my work on it. In fact, he actually confessed he
preferred my version.

I think the benefit of my method over both of these other fine thinker's take
on it, is it doesn't deal directly with an amount of number of changes. The
amount of times the spectator changes back and forth between their hands
is only referred to indirectly in my scripting and for me this is how it should be
performed. It should appear open and fair and nothing to do with actual
numbers. I never mention an amount of changes
directly, in terms of a number and I feel this is what makes my approach so
strong.

Manos did originally consider performing it the way I do now, without
specifically referring directly to numbers but felt it might not be sure fire and
so fell back on the less subtle version he has shared at the back of this book.
I can say with confidence that my version of this works and works well. As
long as you deliver the script exactly as provided in this write up and are
clear with your instructions
you will find this is an extremely reliable method that is also extremely fooling.

To show you how this feels to an audience member, I will first perform it to you
via the written word.

Then I will break down what is happening as well as explain each part of the
scripting and what it achieves.

First of all get a coin and hold it in your right hand (this instruction is only
relevant in this written performance).

Usually, the spectator would simply get a coin out of their pocket in either of
their hands and you would be ready to begin the effect.

Now follow along with the scripting and instructions.
“It is essential you remember how many times you change back and forth
between your hands in a moment and remember exactly where the coin
ends up …

“So just place the coin behind your back and switch back and forth between
your hands a few times”.

“Good. So you have moved the coin a number of times … just do exactly the
same thing again, so this is random”.

“And now bring both hands out in front of you in a fist”.

If you have followed along correctly and this has worked over the written
page then you should be left with the coin in the same hand that it started in.
In this case, it would be your right hand.

If it isn't in your right hand. Don't worry as this method is really only meant to
be performed in person and it is harder to deliver the scripting and time it
correctly, via the written word.

So how does this work?

You will essentially be directing the spectator to move the coin a number of
times and then effectively tell them to repeat the exact same process –
changing the coin back an forth the same amount of times as before. Of
course, this happens indirectly and without instructing the spectator to
change the same number of times again or directly referencing the amount
of changes.
What this does is always converts the amount of times the coin changes back
and forth between their hands into an even number which means the coin
will always return back to whichever hand it started off in.

First of all, we take note of which ever hand the coin happens to be in to
begin with. This is our base-line and the hand it will always return to after the
doubling up of the amount of times they change back and forth between
hands. We do this naturally by simply taking note of which hand they hold it in
as they take out a coin.

Next, we apply the Peter Turner scripting which ensures they will always
remember how many times they change back and forth, without actually
having to state this directly to the spectator. This ensures they follow along
and don't get lost during the changing procedure.

“It is essential you remember how many times you change back and forth
between your hands in a moment and remember exactly where the coin
ends up …”

Theatrically, this just appears as if we need them to focus on such things in
order to be able to read their thoughts to ultimately divine where the coin
ends up. It is important that this instruction is given to the participant before
we direct them to place their hands behind their back as we don't want
them to begin randomly changing the coin between their hands as we say
this scripting, as this would mess up the workings of
the method.

“So just place the coin behind your back and switch back and forth between
your hands a few times behind your back”.

This line is important. We purposefully break up the instruction into two parts.
First, we instruct the spectator to place the coin behind their back. This
ensures they don't switch the hand that contains the coin due to the fact
they will have to first put the coin holding their coin behind their back and
then follow along with the rest of the instruction for them to change back
and forth between each hand behind their back. Only upon completing this
instruction will they now place their other hand behind their back and begin
to switch the coin between their hands.

The words “a few times” ensures the spectator doesn't change back and
forth a larger amount that will be easily forgotten.

Usually, they will change three or four times. This ensures the method stays
solid. In fact, I only give a few seconds for the spectator to follow each of the
instructions throughout this effect before breaking proceedings by delivering
the next instruction. This ensures they follow along closely and there is little
room for any mistake to be made on their part.

After giving them a few seconds to change back and forth I stop them and
say the following.

“Good. So you have moved the coin a number of times … just do exactly the
same thing again, so this is random”.

I don't specifically state a number or refer to it directly but remind them of the
amount of times in a casual manner and then link this idea with the idea of
doing the same procedure again. I use the word “exactly” here so there is no
confusion as to what it is they are to do. This will cause the spectator to just
repeat the exact same moves again. This feels natural to the participant and
won't be challenged. They will just go along
with it.

What is beautiful is how casual this appears. If you prefer you can then add
on a re-frame to further convince everyone including the spectator that the
entire process was random. However, I don't feel this is necessary.

“To re-cap, you changed back and forth between your hands a number of
times at random and even had the chance to change again afterwards and
there is no way I
could know how many times you decided to change, each of these times,
correct?”
Now the coin will always be in the same hand that it started off in.

I also, add in an extra beat to proceedings and offer anadditional choice on
the end. This is something Manos also does for the same reason, so that it
won't always be in the same hand it began in. After sharing my ideas with
Manos he informed me that he gives this additional free choice as a question
– which I agree, is much better than just stating for them to do so.

“Do you want to change to the other hand or keep it in the same had it is
now in?”

If they say change then you know it has to be in the opposite hand to the
one the coin began in and if they don't want to change then you know to
just stick with the same hand it was in to start with.

So there you go, the first piece of the puzzle and what became the third
phase for the which hand routine.

Next, I will show you the first phase followed by the second and you will then
be able to piece this beast together.