Phew! It’s all done.

As you can imagine, there are plenty of other videos besides the ones that got featured on their own days this month. I don’t know if everybody will agree with my choices… and if not, well, hopefully this will assuage some criticism.

Here’s Al Schneider performing a relatively abbreviated version of the Cups and Balls. One thing I love is that sequence that starts at 0:35 where the balls transpose from one cup to the other, one at a time. It’s a great idea, and aside from Schneider and Suzanne I don’t see many people doing it.

If you’re as interested in trying to find different 2 cup routines as I am, you might like this one from Tilman Andris…

Here’s Larry Jennings doing his one cup routine on Japanese TV…

And here’s few more conventional 3 cup routines for you… Here’s Michael Vincent doing his version.

And here’s Bebel…

And here’s Lance Burton…

And in this promotional video for the L&L DVD series devoted to the Cups and Balls, there are performances from both John Mendoza (different from the one done last week) and Marc DeSouza…

There’s a Shawn Farquhar clip out there somewhere showing his cups and balls performance for FISM. Searches on his name yielded no results, unfortunately — maybe you’ll have better luck. The climax is interesting, where the cups are shown to be solid steel with no opening.

Doug Atkinson, who runs a website devoted to the table of contents for magic books, has this page devoted specifically to references for the cups and balls. Also, Denis Behr manages an archive of various magic-related subjects (tricks and sleights, for the most part), and there are some entries there on the cups and balls (click on the arrow next to “Cups & Balls” to expand the menu).

Lance Pierce, in further communication, had this to say about the importance of the wand. I think there are some good thoughts here…

This is purely personal opinion, but I think the wand is crucial for several reasons. I’ve seen very, very, very few routines that didn’t use a wand that still looked good. Part of the reason for this, I believe, is that nearly every time, someone took what they knew of cups and balls and stripped it down to a routine that didn’t have a wand. This is directly opposed to starting with nothing and building a great no-wand routine from the ground up.

But that’s just me.

Finally, here’s Kieran show-casing his impressive sleight of hand skills.

Some regrets for this month… Not being able to get a clip of David Regal’s “Cups and Balls and Cups and Balls”, not being able to get performance clips of some Vancouver buddies of mine, not being able to coerce either Lance Pierce or Tyler Erickson to get behind the camera, not finding performance footage of Bob Read, not getting a clip up of John Ramsay’s work, and heck, not getting behind the camera myself, if only to show that I can do more than just talk about the plot. I would have liked to get more product reviews up as well, especially since L&L has that sweet three volume series devoted to the plot. Still, I think, all in all, it wasn’t a bad month, and maybe some of that can be talked about next year…?

Here’s Gazzo. Got 40 minutes?

I know instinctively that this video will not be to everybody’s tastes. Regardless, the only thing I can say is this: this video is important. It’s similar to Penn and Teller — you can like it or hate, but you can’t ignore it, because in all likelihood more people have seen this performance than they have seen your preferred magic show. It’s worth watching, if only to see what you’re competing with. You’ll have to wait more than 20 minutes to see the cups and balls, but if you care about magic, you’ll watch. You might not like what you’re watching, that’s fine, but you’ll watch anyway.

If nothing else, look at the crowd. They don’t go away. They watch the entire thing. And they get the cups and balls. And they get a better climax than Vernon gave them.

Perhaps, more than any other entry this month, this video shows what it means to perform the cups and balls for people, since it’s directly tied into the history of it all — a guy on the street, his table, a random crowd, and his props.

Given all this, where do you fit in?

So much study has been done on this routine that only an arrogant twit would attempt to add to it.

Thus, without further ado…

There are so many specific lessons that can be taken away from this routine. Granted, some of these lessons could be taken away from any thorough study of the cups and balls as a whole, but Vernon seems to have so many of them in here. Here are a few…

The role of the climax: Many performers have stated before that the Cups and Balls is all about the final loads — without the final loads, there’s almost no reason to do the trick. However, in the Revelations DVD series, it’s mentioned that it’s a bad idea to do card-to-wallet or card-to-sealed-envelope with the last ace as a climax to the Travellers (in which four Aces travel to four different pockets). This seems to suggest that there needs to be a differentiation between gratuitous climaxes and climaxes that are worth sacrificing opening effects for. We’ve seen examples of this in magic history — the coin flurry which ends with a Jumbo coin production, the Benson Bowl or one-cup routine that ends with a bill-to-lemon, or the Ambitious Card trick that ends with card-to-wallet. I suspect that many people who’ve performed these sorts of tricks in real life will attest to the idea that, even if the preliminary phases are entertaining, it’s that climax that they’ll remember. I also suspect that many people who’ve performed tricks with this strategy, rather than just rushing to the climax, will attest to the effectiveness in using these preliminary phases to set up the ebb and flow of the routine, the timing and mental misdirection, which can help heighten the surprise of that climax.

Which brings us to what Vernon’s structure allows us to do. We’ve got balls jumping all over the place. They disappear, reappear, gather, penetrate, etc. But then he starts to go to the pockets in the complex elimination sequence, and at one point, prior to the reveal of the first final load, we get a pretty good surprise in the reappearance of all three balls under the center cup (don’t let the lack of response in the Vernon video fool you, watch the other videos this month that use it and you’ll see that it plays well). This moment, I think, is key. We’ve got gradual escalation, leading to an all-at-once assembly from the pocket, which is a moment worth pausing and punctuating, before we reveal the first surprise kicker. If they care even a little bit about the silly adventures of those little balls, then that moment has some strength to it, and it’s only going to get better from there. It’s really worthwhile understanding how it is that routines can gradually escalate. From the moment the sophisticated elimination sequence begins, to the moment it (and the routine itself) ends, we’ve got four levels of escalation — first, a ball returns, then all the balls return, then there’s a jumbo ball, and then there’s a whole bunch of jumbo balls. This sort of effect construction actually has tangible application in other genres — I use it in my Ambitious Card Routine to great effect, and I’ve seen others do so as well.

The 2-0-2 sequence: This is where the magician makes a ball jump from the one cup to another cup of the audience’s choice. I’m not a big fan of this phase, I think in large part because it takes too long to do what it’s meant to do (specifically, show a ball travel), and in my view the follow-up undermines the specialness of that audience-dictated travel. Still, the fact that Vernon kept it in, in my mind, highlights the importance of interaction in this otherwise watch-the-magician-show-off routine. Are there other ways to involve the audience? Or, are there ways to heighten the effectiveness of that so as to really impress the importance of the spectator’s role? I think Master Payne in his routine really nailed it, milking that one moment for all its worth. In any case, I think this is one of those phases that, if you’re going to use it, really take advantage of what it accomplishes — specifically, the involvement in the audience in the way the magic unfolds. If you’re not going to do that, why bother?

The red herring: Yeah, as magicians we’re not supposed to expose, but Vernon does it in his routine. Let’s set aside the lazy rationalization that because he’s Vernon he can do whatever he wants, and try to break this down. Quickly, for those adamant souls who don’t want to expose even the tiniest method in their routine, there’s a pretty simple answer — just handle that sequence the same way Ricky Jay does in his own cups and balls (ie: “Other magicians do this, but I do no such thing”). Still, is there any merit to actually giving away that bit of business? Again, keep in mind that, in some people’s minds, the trick is all about the final loads. In deliberately tempting them with this bit of exposure, the audience is naturally put on guard to try to see it for themselves and catch it in action. That little bit of exposure might explain how the second ball comes back, but while we’re concentrating on that, we’re not only misdirected away from the set-up for the climax (which is a good thing), but we’re also misdirected away from the mini-climax (the three balls returning under the second cup) which is also arguably a good thing, since it helps set up the final climax. While, on the whole, it might not be in everybody’s best interest to give away this sort of information, for those who can deal with the ramifications of it, it’s possible to get some misdirection mileage from making that tiny confession.

Motivation: Let me tell you something about my girlfriend. When it comes to magic, she’s no dummy. She loved it, and was the sort who enjoyed it with her brain turned off, and I gradually ruined that aspect of her after showing her one too many tricks and asking her if I flashed or whatever. Forgetting for a moment that there’s probably a level in Hell for magicians like me, this evolution on her part has proven interesting — I was watching several routines in a row by a notable mentalism performer, and she saw through the method of each of them. This was surprising given that the mentalist is highly regarded, but there’s another really funny aspect to this — she’s seen a bunch of cups and balls routines this month, and she still doesn’t know how the final loads end up under the cups. It’s absolutely amazing what motivating all that ball traffic can do throughout the routine, and particularly in the latter stages. It cannot be overstated what motivation can do, as there is no logical reason for why we should be allowed to get away with some of the methods at work here.

The wand: Not everybody likes it, but just remember that it offers you some great advantages, and conversely, eliminating it can create some obstacles. As Michael Ammar said pretty eloquently in his DVD set, it’s useful not just for theatrically establishing a source of the magician’s power and the cause for the magic they see, but also to conceal key things and rationalize flows of traffic. Effective wand use can really help with cover, and you don’t need to use a wand — it could be a marker, another cup, even another ball. It can also help motivate the arrangement and rearrangement of props, but again, it doesn’t have to be a wand — it could be the reveal of a magic effect, or the repositioning of a cup so that they’re spaced out better, or making sure that both the spectators on your left and right get a good look at the ball, etc. Personally, while I don’t think that a lack of a wand spells the death of a cups and balls routine, I think spending a great deal of time studying the purpose of a wand allows you to identify more opportunities to use wand-like strategies elsewhere. So, consider the placement of the wand throughout this routine, and see what lessons can be drawn from it, how that can be used to cut down on moves, what it helps cover, and so on.

Punctuating moments: Jay Sankey and others have lately argued that a lot of what magic is about is creating images that spectators remember after the fact. There’s this one moment in Vernon’s routine that always stuck with me, and which I didn’t like for the longest time — it’s where the cups are tilted back, the balls are placed right beneath the rims so that the cups remain tilted back, and then the cups are pushed forward with the wand so that they cover the ball. For the longest time I couldn’t figure out what I didn’t like about it, until I realized later on that perhaps the key thing is the fact that the image is remembered. The Vernon routine is littered with moments like this. The cups are frequently “capped” by the balls, which sets up a nice contrasting image at the final post-climax display. The wand is frequently waved about whilst gesturing mid-patter, and used to nudge and tilt back cups, even when it’s not doing double-duty as a deceptive aid. Also, that first trip from the pocket allows you to show a clean hand (which arguably Vernon could have milked a little more), and this can help make all those trips to the pocket feel more innocent.

And, possibly one of the most important images established throughout the routine is the fact that the cups are frequently shown empty — the cup-through-cup gag, the cup-is-deeper-on-the-inside gag, and the reveal after the first vanishes, the reveal after the 2-0-2 sequences, and the 0-3-0 assembly when the cups are fully tilted back. With all of those empty shows, and taking into account the effectiveness of motivation (discussed earlier), it becomes evident why the appearance of those final loads hits so hard. It’s also worth pointing out that some magicians will use some of those displays which strongly imply emptiness to conceal something special, and some will even go to gaffed cups just to get that really great moment where you lift the cup and nothing comes out. Perhaps what’s greatest, though, is that this image of empty cups is done subtly throughout the routine.

One other benefit of punctuation is that the pauses can also help create start-stop gaps between the sleight-of-hand and the effects. Consider the following… you’ve just shown all three balls you just vanished have returned under the cups, and you place each of them back under the cup. You pause to let that fact sink in. You then say that you’re going to make a ball move from the middle cup to one of the side cups. If an audience member is going to be on-guard for you to do something sleighty to make that happen, they’re going to be in trouble, because at this point you can accomplish it without making a bad move. Similarly, if you’ve just shown the three balls have returned to the center cup from the pocket, and you pause, consider what the audience is about to see — the cups were all shown to have small balls under them, the fact sinks in, and you then do no bad moves as you show that now there are huge balls underneath them. This technique, using a key pause to show something magical without having to resort to a move at a bad time, is in my mind the essence of effective sleight-of-hand — it’s sleight-of-hand that looks so moveless that it practically disproves its own existence. Certain moments have natural pauses and moments for this sort of punctuation built into them, but consider that it’s possible for you to construct those moments into your routine, if you apply some thought to it.

The cancelling of methods: The early phase of this routine, in which Vernon vanishes the three balls before they appear under the cups, involves two different ways to vanish the balls. The first two are FT-based, and the last is a steal-based method. Very quickly… cancelling methods, when employed well, allow you to use more than one method to accomplish a given effect, and to use the strengths of one method to offset the weaknesses of the other method. It might sound needlessly abstract, but that simple sequence shows just how easy it is to incorporate cancelling methods, and keep in mind what it allows the performer to do — if you’ve got somebody trying to bust you on your magic (as is wont to happen from time to time) it’s worthwhile being able to switch up the methodology. Going FT-based a couple of times, and then really putting the ball over in the other hand the third time, allows you a minor moment of surprise when the hand opens to show it’s still there, if the audience is getting hip to the FT. It might even be worth throwing a feint in there — pretending to FT while actually dropping it off — so that you can heighten the tension. There are varying degrees of subtlety you can employ to set up that moment, but the key is, steal-based methods are usually harder and less clean to execute, and are arguably the intuitive solution that an audience would be on guard for, and so that moment where the audience is surprised to actually see the ball is where it’s supposed to be, if you fostered some tension, sets up a pretty good moment of relaxation as the tension is released, that can allow for a better temporary atmosphere to do the bolder technique. In the long run, it really helps when you’re doing sleight-of-hand to keep them off-guard, and cancelling methods allows you to do this.

The false solution: This is also related to the cancelling methods strategy, in that both were really brought to the larger magic world’s attention by Juan Tamariz. In the case, though, you’re not varying your methods. If you look at the middle penetration sequence, when the balls penetrate and assemble between the nested cups, you’ll notice that he pauses to show that the ball isn’t already there. That display, though, to show it’s not already there, actually sets up the motivation to get into position, and yet it looks like he’s done the same thing twice in a row — he nested all three, he displayed nothing had happened, and then he nested all three again, and this time, when he displayed, there’s another ball there. What makes it work, though, is allowing the idea to get out there that the state is somehow unfair. It’s similar to doing a feint prior to the coin travelling in Tenkai Pennies — suspicion that something might have happened, if you acknowledge it, gives you motivation to show all is fair… and in the process, do something else sneaky, even the same method you’ve been using all along. And, of course, in both the case of this and with cancelling methods, when the audience is having trouble figuring out what you’re doing, you can make a greater case for the wand being the causative agent, since it’s the only thing that seems to be consistently making the magic happen.

Built-in misdirection in a multiple-phase routine: It seems obvious because it’s an integral part of just about every cups and balls routine, but it’s something that Michael Ammar pointed out in the Revelations DVD series in reference to the cups and balls, and it’s something that Vernon uses to great effect. Specifically, the principle is this — a magic effect is great misdirection away from a secret move. Examples of this have already been talked about already — just look at the elimination phase at the end which sets up the final climax. This principle is extremely portable to all sorts of magic routines, and it’s why a magician, if he starts one-ahead, is usually able to keep one-ahead of the audience throughout the routine. This can be used with coin flurries, assembly plots like the Travelling Marbles or various versions of matrix, or even stage manipulations. Misdirection is usually weak, and risks being exposed for what it is, if the audience feels like they were forced to look away from something. Misdirection is usually strong if the audience feels like they were looking at something important, and what can be more important than a magic effect? It’s why they’re there, after all, to watch magic effects, isn’t it?

I’m sure there’s so much more, and I’ve only touched the tip of the iceberg here, but this is one of those reasons why I firmly believe that the cups and balls is such an important routine to study from a technical point of view. Analyzing this specific routine, and everything it accomplishes, can not only improve one’s own cups and balls routine, and not only provide strategies that are useful in cups and balls variants like the chop cup or the Benson Bowl routine, but other branches of magic, including cards and coins, and I’ve even had success applying much of the above to mentalism — wand cover, punctuating displays, and motivation, to name three. There are obvious benefits to studying the cups and balls (it’s amazing what you can do with a good false transfer) but I hope you’ll agree that some of the intangibles are valuable as well.

And, if you’re going to have to study one, you could do much worse than to study Vernon’s.

Update: Lance Pierce sent me a PM regarding my comment on the Red Herring, above. He generously allowed me to quote him here…

While I can’t put this forth with absolute certainty, I believe Vernon’s reason for doing this is different. He does it also in his routine with the linking rings and in some card tricks, and I believe that it’s with a very specific intent.

We went back and forth on this point a little bit, but rather than include that, I’m going to leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out for themselves what they think of Vernon’s patter at that point in the routine. Much thanks goes out to Lance for his comments, though.

If you are at all curious about performing the cups and balls, then you’ve probably got some interest in the props that are available to you, and if this is the case, then you absolutely need to be acquainted with Bill Palmer, as in addition to being an award-winning performer, he is also both a noted writer and historian on the genre, as well as the curator of the Cups And Balls Museum. Bill, based in Houston, Texas, has spent more time than a sane person should in amassing everything he can on the cups and balls, including historical information, prints, literature, and the most ridiculous collection of cups, balls and wands you could imagine.

There are sections on art and history, the cup sets of famous magicians, cups of miniature and jumbo size, cups found in magic sets, unusual cups and “found” cups (cups that were never intended for magic but are usably nonetheless), interesting wands and loads, and even sets for some variations on the plot, such as the shell game and the Benson bowl routine. The photographs of each item are great — large, clear and with the subjects nicely arranged, including when necessary a view of the cup’s interior through the opening — and there’s great information in the captions for each entry, both historical and editorial. There’s even a comprehensive interface to search the database.

The breadth here is staggering, ranging from relatively old sets to ones that have just been put on the market. Curious about what Gazzo, Don Alan, or your average ancient Roman street performer used? Wondering who might have successfully performed magic with Starbucks cups? Wondering what common (and funny) household item Pete Biro successfully converted into a chop cup? Wondering which jumbo shells routine to buy and which to stay away from? Answers to these questions and more are found within.

Even if your intent isn’t to research specific cups, you could easily spend a good portion of an afternoon just browsing around. If you’re brainstorming ideas for a presentation that fits you, the value of this website simply cannot be overstated. What’s more, people hunting throughout the website will also discover Bill’s update to the Cups and Balls section from Hocus Pocus Jr., as well as plans for a beautiful busking table.

Bill was both kind and encouraging when I approached him about this particular project, and when I mentioned that I would like to feature his museum at some point during the month, he wanted it mentioned that membership to the museum is free, and a password is available simply by emailing him, which you can do at curator@cupsandballsmuseum.com.

Honestly, modern magic suffers from many things, but one big one is a lack of appreciation amongst magicians for its history. Granted, the secretive nature of magic has made it difficult to track down and research its history, but if we had for the entire art form what Bill Palmer has given to us for the cups and balls, there would be no excuse. It is, quite simply, a treasure.

Thanks so much, Bill.

This is an absolute treat. Master Payne (known as “Payne” on the Magic Cafe) is here performing a really robust cups and balls routine. Payne’s a master at presentation — aside from the gift of gab that you can see in the video here, and the wide array of motifs he’s able to adapt his magic to (including the Wild West and Harry Potter universe) he’s also given lectures on the topic of presentation, including a great one here for the Mystery School on the subject of six card repeat (it’s the third one down).

But, thankfully, Payne’s not indulged himself in the false dichotomy of favouring presentation over method. The routine construction here is really good, and there are several phases here which took in both myself and a fellow Seymour Street Conjuring Society member Travis Bernhardt, who’s been around the block when it comes to sleight of hand. I’ve long maintained that not everybody comes to a magic show with the same mindset. Some want to be entertained, others want to be fooled — or, to put it another way, they are disappointed if they can see their way through to the method. The key thing to remember is that it’s possible to do both at the same time, and anybody who tells you otherwise is probably betraying their bias (at best) or lack of ability (at worst) in one of those two departments.

In any case, here’s Payne making that case himself. I don’t know which one he consciously spends more time working on, but I’m a proof-is-in-the-pudding kind of guy, and I think there’s something here for everybody. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have put him so close to Vernon. Enjoy.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Well, try as I could, I was unable to pester the ever-elusive Lance Pierce into getting his performance video up of his take on the Benson Bowl plot, so here’s Earl South (a member of Lance’s forum) doing it for a competition in Atlanta, Georgia. This is a commercially available routine which you can purchase here, and like John Carney’s Fruit Cup, it seeks to combine the best of two different plots. I personally think it does a great job, as does Earl in the video, seeing as how, despite going over the time limit, still managed to come in second place.

And I promise from the bottom of my heart that this is the last routine I’ll be showcasing that isn’t a proper three-cup Cups and Balls routine.

Sorry that these haven’t been coming out exactly at the end of their respective weeks. This has proven to be a bit more difficult to keep up-to-date on than I had expected.

When Bill Palmer heard that I had a Benson Bowl routine that was going to be featured soon, he got in touch with me to point out a routine by the late Werner Seitz. Here it is…

Tom G mentioned that I ought to get a clip up of Antonio Romero’s transparent cups routine. I believe this is the one…? Some neat stuff going on here.

“Magic Researcher” pointed out the following routine from Doug Gorman, involving some non-traditional props and a drinking theme.

A couple of people mentioned that they thought Dominique Duvivier’s routine was good. Here it is… People interested in various penetration sequence ideas might want to check it out.

Finally, as I mentioned last week, Pablo (aka “pabloinus”) had said I should get John Mendoza up here. Here’s the only one I was able to find online. A quick look at the contents of his “My Best” DVD set says that there’s a chop cup routine, a Benson Bowl routine, and three different cups and balls routines. I’m beginning to see why Michael Ammar referenced him on his Complete Cups and Balls DVD set.

This sort of thing humbles me, if only because it reminds me of my ignorance when it comes to magic outside of the Western world. There’s an amazingly rich culture of street magic performance in India, for instance, and a recent Magic Cafe thread highlighted some great cups and balls videos and the background of some of the performers. One of the key clips talked about has been removed by the user, unfortunately, but I was able to scrounge up some more footage.

This one is from a guy (called “Ali”?) with some of the best English you’ll hear from a guy apologizing for it. He’s performing for some tourists, and the patter involving balls travelling to different countries seems to be pretty popular.

Here’s some footage that Bill Palmer linked to of a Rajasthani kid. I have no clue what’s being said, but from the sounds of it he’s not taking any crap from his elders.

Here’s some funny documentary footage, but you’ll have to wait until around the 7 minute mark to see some cups and balls. It’s not a full performance, unfortunately. The narration, however, is priceless.

On the Cafe thread, a magician by the name of Sherif Mayika pointed out this particular clip, showing a magician he claims is using some of the techniques applicable to the cups and balls for a slightly different routine.

Finally, here’s another guy who uses the cups and balls in the middle of his set. I especially like the byplay that seems to be going on prior to the final effect. Also, the use of multiplying coins — sort of like a Miser’s Dream without the bucket — seems to be popular as well.

Some interesting similarities throughout. In pretty much every case that I’ve seen, the magician is sitting cross-legged. While the wand is used in the usual manner, the bag and even clothing also appear to be useful for various acquitments. Not every magician makes use of the flute, but as is the case with most Western magician buskers, noisemaking in general is prevalent. That load from the CP appears to be extremely popular, and that specific technique would seem to be very magician-friendly when it comes to angles. They don’t have the fascination with the final loads that the Western world seems to, but if the last video is indicative of performance on the larger scale, they don’t necessarily use the cups and balls as a closer anyway.

In any case, some interesting stuff.

I don’t know how many of you care which sort of routine I’d actually do myself, but if there was one from everything else this month, even given all the great stuff from Daniels, Regal, Carney, etc., this routine from Mark Jenest would be it. I’d probably modify it a little, and I might drop the fingercuffs gag, but the props and overall presentational premise I’d certainly leave as it. If you’re at a bar, the inherent relationship between the “sobriety test” approach and the fact that the props are all endemic to the bar environment allow for a much more impromptu feel than most of the others. Heck, even if the bar you’re at doesn’t have a jigger handy, you can just pretend to go to the counter and return with the necessary props, and most people won’t be any of the wiser. It would be like somebody handed you a dollar bill at a lemonade stand.

If there’s any downside, it’s that the production of two wine corks isn’t quite the miracle that producing fruit is, so perhaps it can’t really close a set the way the others could, but in my mind, that’s not necessarily a problem, so long as you have something stronger to follow up with. (And again, if you’re at a bar, they’ve got lemons, yes…?)

And finally, I promise, this is the last variation on the one-cup theme for the month. I swear.

Well, there’s a Benson Bowl variant coming up, but that’s it. I promise. Seriously. It’s all 3 cup routines from here.

It had to be done at some point. Here’s Penn and Teller exposing the cups and balls. I’ve gone back and forth on the way I feel about this video. On the one hand, I was outraged that they’d expose this classic. On the other, so many magicians who like this routine claim that regular people are fooled anyway. But then again, isn’t the basic principle there for anybody to see? But then again (part 2), this is their particular routining involving two people handling the cups, rather than one, so can they bridge that cognitive gap to figure out how one person would do it? But then again (part 3, this time it’s personal) we don’t give laymen enough credit. But then again (part IV) maybe we give them too much credit. etc. etc. and so on and so forth.

I guess, as it often is with Penn and Teller, it’s not so much about the exposure itself, as it is about the conversation it generates, and if they didn’t give us conflicted emotions as magicians, then they wouldn’t really be doing their job. I’ve written more on this elsewhere, so I won’t blather on about it here.

Anyhow, watch and (a) cringe or (b) be delighted.