Talk:Ambitious Card

Many magic secrets are closely guarded. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, only those with reliable and cited sources can be included in Wikipedia articles. If a secret cannot be verified through independent sources, it will be removed from the main article. Any "secret" revealed on this talk page may not be accurate; it may be speculative, erroneous, or even deliberately deceptive.

Untitled[edit]

Being a magician myself I must say that something like The Ambitious card should not be on a public domain such as wikipedia. It is just wrong. It is someones hard work that you are just spitting out for no reason. There is no reason any magic secret should be given away on this site. It doesn't make people respect or appreciate it more. It only takes away from the effect and the fun. Fun for the preformer and spectator. All that should be on here is a descripstion of how the trick looks. Not the trick itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bester (talk • contribs) 06:57, 3 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a magician I say that this is unacceptable. Stating how a trick is done not right. We as magicians work very hard to learn, practice and perform these moves and spend quite a bit of money on it. If people really want to know how this trick is done they should spent some money on one of the many videos or books that teaches it. The description of how it looks is okay but you should not have the explanation posted. As a magician and for my fellow magicians I ask that you take it down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Leaf (talk • contribs) 09:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has been discussed at considerable length over at Talk:Out of This World (card trick); you may wish to add to the discussion there. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Help review "Mr Leaf"'s edit - vandalism or not[edit]

Mr. Leaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edited this article last month (this edit) making questionable changes that have, at least in part, later been undone. Today Mr Leaf showed himself to be another incarnation of the long running Magician Randy magicvandal, doing his usual out-and-out vandalism. Can someone review the above change and ensure that the damage he did last month has been undone? Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since Ambitioius Card is a card plot rather than a standardized trick, the secret isn't even correct. It's possible to perform an ACR without executing a single DL. Moreover, the final stages of the routine, as the effect gets "more fair" -- and proportionately stronger -- may not even involve a DL at all. Instead the card is returned face up in the center of the deck and then appears on top. Or the card ends inside the performer's wallet, or abruptly appears inside his mouth. It just so happens that the DL is typically the main sleight, not "the secret." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.169.190.208 (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help review "Mr Leaf"'s edit - vandalism or not[edit]

I agree with the comments above - the Ambitious Card is a magicians' secret and there is no reason whatsoever to tip the method to any curious people who might want to learn how it is done. Please could you take down this section, and in fact the other ones in other articles which also tip classic tricks of magic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.54.171 (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with other magicians above, I personally have spent many hours and a lot of money studying, practising and learning magic effects such as the Ambitious card and I find it offensive that all that hard work is undone by people thoughtlessly giving away the secrets. I have removed the secret and cited a book where the effect can be learned so if anyone wants to know how to do it they can do what I had to do and buy a book. Furthermore some people's livelihoods as entertainers depend on people not knowing how an effect is performed, by revealing the secrets you are destroying somebodies source of income. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.36.223 (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines regarding exposure of magic[edit]

Articles on magic should adhere to the guidelines laid down by the WikiProject Magic regarding exposure. The Method section of this article was not properly cited and is therefor an unecessary breach of secrecy regarding the method of the illusion. As a magician, I can honestly say that it was of poor quality as well. I have removed the section, but anyone should feel free to bring it back if they properly cite sources for the explanations given in it. See Magic Methods and Exposure

Moquel 08:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve the explanation section. As a magician, you well know that this trick is widely exposed, and that a few seconds with Google will lead the inquiring reader to a variety of instructions for the (simple) version presented here. I've added a couple of those links to the article; please stop removing the explanation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't touch a properly cited article. I'm just following the guidelines, and would like for people not to see that as some sort of vandalism. Simply reverting my edits when proper cause has been given for my action, as well as an ignoring the invitation to talk it over really doesn't seem like the right thing to do.Moquel 13:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I currently propose removing the first paragraph under the method's section, and leave it as pointing people to other sources to read about it themselves. The DL method explained says to have a signed card as the second card... But leaves out any method to control the signed card to that position in the deck. What kind of a method is that? It's a lie in and of itself, and I think we're better off saying in essence "there's a multitude of places where you can learn the ACR, and master it with dedicated practice over a period of time" -- it's not an easy routine. Anyone agree? --Protocoldroid (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Protocoldroid above. Should there at least be some sort of disclaimer that a trick is about to be revealed? We have a template used when the plot of a story is revealed. A similar template should exist when exposing the mechanisms behind a trick. (That's the whole point of a magic trick.) In any case, I think this article could be easily reworded so the trick is not exposed. We could just say that the trick involves sleights such as the double lift and false shuffle and leave it at that. -- Yekrats (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing citations header...[edit]

Guys, I think these sources are pretty good. So I'm going to remove the 'citations needed' header at the top of the page. While I think the youtube link to an ACR isn't exactly "perfect"... I own the "Card College" series, and if that doesn't give a valid reference, I don't know what does. Plus 6-7 other sources that are legitimate, I'd say, we did a good job sourcing a trick which, from my own editorial view -- is widely known how to describe the effect. "I bury the card, it's now on top!" * 1,000,000. And as another editorial note: do a youtube search for Michael Ammar's ACR, it's beautiful and inspiring!!

--Protocoldroid (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fooling Houdini?[edit]

There's a book out now about magic in which it is stated that this trick "fooled Houdini". Does anyone have any further information about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.188.200 (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]