What’s the Deal With The Down Under Deal

Radar of a spectator is the last thing you want to be “on.” Before we get to that, first a brief treatise on the Down Under Deal, and I do mean brief. Take a small packet of cards, say eight. Hold them face down in the dealing position. Then deal one to the table, then one to the bottom of the deck; then one to the table, one to the bottom. Continue until you have only one card remaining in your hand. If you started with an 8 card stack, then the card that is remaining will be the original bottom card of the packet. Which card you’re left with varies based on how many cards you start with in your packet.

To figure this out, grab any number of cards starting from Ace on top, two second from the top, three third, etc., until you have however many cards you want to try.

Do the dealing procedure, one down to the table, one underneath until you have one card left. Whatever its value is the position it started in. Everything above is for your own playground at home when nobody is looking. Let’s move on to the point.

Let’s imagine an effect using a small packet of 8 cards where you have a card selected and controlled to the bottom of the eight card packet. Then you can do the Down Under Deal (or have the spectator) do it until one card is left. The final card is their selection.

That’s a decent effect and certainly not original with me. Many others have done this type of effect. In fact, the one that inspired this chapter is Max Maven’s effect from Redivider called Pseudo D/U ESP (p. 12). There are plenty others out there. (I promise; a point is coming soon).

There are variations of the procedure. For example, you might deal one to the table. Then deal the second one to the table next to the first one and place the packet on top of it; Then pick up the packet and deal another one onto the one still on the table. Then deal another one to the table next to the pile and place the packet on top; pick it up and repeat.

Additionally, you can deal two cards next to each other, then place the packet on the one that goes “under” the deck and repeat, etc.

I just never really cared for this procedure. Many have published various ways and means to justify the procedure. Some work ok, but others do not. However, I’ve never seen one that feels right to me, until now. As far as I can tell, the idea to follow is original with me.

Very simple and very straightforward. Go back to your stack of 8 cards. Have one picked and controlled to the bottom. Next you are about to perform the D/U deal, but in a very disguised way. Deal down the top two cards one at a time. Then place your hand over each card one at a time in an effort to “get a sense” or a “feeling” of which card might be the spectator’s card.

After your feeling, you decide that you’re not sure about one card, but you are definitely sure that the other card is NOT their card. Thus you push it aside, and place the other one (the one that you’re “not sure” about) under the packet. Repeat this “deal two, feel both and discard one” procedure until you’ve got one card left.

Each round, you are (in the mind of the audience) eliminating a card that you know is not their card. The effect is that through process of elimination you’ve eliminated the seven cards that you are sure are not their card. Of course, each time, you are “discarding” the one that would normally be dealt “down” on the table, and you are putting the one that normally goes under the deck, under the deck with the claim that you’re not sure if this is their card or not.

What makes this really deceptive is that each “round,” I change it up a little. First round, I’ll deal the top card and place the second card to the right. Do my “feel the cards” business. Then place the packet on the card on the right (the “Under” card). Then on the next deal, I place the top card down and the “Under” card to the left. After “feeling” the cards, I place the packet onto the left (the “Under” card).

On the next deal, I might place the “Down” card on the table and the “Under” card below it (i.e. in a column rather than a row). Then next time, maybe the “Under” card goes above the “Down” card in the column. Maybe next time I just hold the “Down” card and “feel” it and decide to discard it to the table. Then take the next card and “feel” it and decide to place it under the deck.

Additionally, I may ask the spectator’s to “feel” the cards. If they guess right go with it. If they don’t then just correct them. For example, you may place the “Down” card on the table and ask her to see if she feels anything when her hand is placed above the card. If she says, “Yep, I feel something. It’s NOT my card,” then say you’re golden. Agree with her and push the card aside. If however, she said, “It feels like it IS my card” or she’s not sure” then you say, that you’re confident that it’s NOT her card and push it aside.

You don’t need to have the spectator do it every time, but giving them the opportunity can only strengthen the effect if they get a hit, and leave the effect the same if they miss. Why not give ’em a chance or two. In the aforementioned Maven effect, you find two cards, and the best part is that the cards are in the spectator’s hands the entire time. You actually don’t have to control the cards to the correct position. The extremely clever handling allows for this to happen automatically in the spectator’s hands while your head is turned.

Obviously I won’t be tipping that method. You need to pick up your own copy of Redivider. I’ve read that book over a half-dozen times. It’s one of the most brilliant books I’ve read and has inspired so many things in my own work.

My point, however, is that I use Maven’s effect with my “Deal and Feel” procedure. The combination of the two makes for a very powerful routine that feels like true clairvoyance. Trust me. This will take your mentalism to a whole new level.