I dont understand the reviewers that say this trick is horrible, or that the outcome on the trailer
isnt always possible. Ive performed this and every time I great a great reaction, and from the
SPECTATORS POINT OF VIEW, the outcome will always appear like the one in the trailer (and more often
than not, it actually does). True, there is a VERY SMALL amount of memory work, and true, the deck
has to be preset, but this trick is great. I have a presentation that basically guarantees that the
few "unchoosable" numbers are never picked, and at the same time it makes the number choosing a much
more imaginative, memorable moment for the audience. I have collected MANY ACAAN or CAAN plots, and
none are perfect. They all have a limitation or drawback. Personally, I dont have the patience or
math skills to memorize a stack and then do the calculations needed while trying to entertain
people, so a method like this is GREAT. If you find that the effect is not hitting hard, rethink
your presentation and showmanship and you will find a great effect with THINK.
You say, "from the SPECTATORS POINT OF VIEW, the outcome will always appear like the one in the trailer (and more often than not, it actually does)".
First off, equivoque is necessary for the trick to "always" appear like the trailer, and the trick description says "no equivoque". Only 10% of the time does it work without equivoque. It's actually pretty complex equivoque to get 10% to come out to 100%.
Secondly, 10% is not "more often than not", it's way less.
That's why reviewers give the trick bad reviews. The trick is okay, but the sales material is false and deceptive.
If you buy a trick that says "no math" but actually requires mental arithmetic, it's a ripoff. If you buy a trick that says "no slights" but actually requires second dealing, it's a ripoff. So, if you buy Think that says "no equivoque", and the trailer shows no equivoque, but actually requires a complex ten-way equivoque, it's a ripoff.
