Thanks for a matured take on this. What about that lady (from Australia, if I am not wrong).. whose claim to fame.. rested on her being the daughter of a famed magician. . In one of her performances on Fool US.. she did a Houdini type escape. (P and T got check the props BEFORE, as if that mattered). . I think.. in that one.. the producers and or the channel wanted her to be declared aa a Fooler. . And so.. in that sense, the show seems a bit scripted. . Pardon my English. It is not my first language. . Also.. I am not judging anyone here. . Much as I have respect for the performers, for the on screen judges (P and T) and the backstage judges. . I am merely adding to your topic.. that of the controversial performances list. . Thank you.
For the #2 spot and the "red herring" , Penn has said on the show that a large part of magic is Game Theory. Wouldn't the "red herring" fall into that definition? As for Jay Sankey, it was the video that Jay put out that *really* set off P&T. Fair? I can't say. Game theory? hmm maybe? but....
man, finally somebody is talking about this! Unfortunatley I never saw the response-video by Mr. Sankey, but I remember his performance well and I have been familiar with his works for ... more than a dacade. when I saw the performance - specifically the card restore I was wondering "why would he use a method that leaves him with dirty scraps when he 20 years earlier described a clean version of that in a book" and then it dawned on me - This was a Andy Kaufman-esque meta performance! (at least in my head :) regardless of how it was percieved afterwards - I like the idea to "let me do the good version while pretending to do the bad version of the trick in order to make you think you are not fooled when infact you are.." - again i haven't seen his video, but still: he took a risk - maybe it did not turn out as planned, but I still and I respect that. in perfect 20-20 hindsight: the mere fact of doing that on yt was probably ill advised. maybe letting P&T know privately - but not obvious would have worked. something like "penn or teller sees him 20 yrs later in the Magic Castle and he does sth - then it dawns on them that they had been trolled 20 yrs earlier"
Penn has said to a couple of people, "We know that you did a switch, but we could not see it at all. We don't know when you did the switch. So you fooled us." Respect to them for those acknowledgements.
My issue with the Jay Sankey performance is that he accepted that he didn't fool them while on the show. He then publicly brags that he really did fool them when discussing it on his RUclips channel. Perhaps he had a change of heart while on Fool US, and believed that he wasn't playing fair by giving false leads. In any case, he should have spoken up truthfully while on the show, or kept quiet about it later. Trying to have it both ways is one of the biggest issues.
I believe he thought it would've been unfair to claim the trophy based on misdirection, it would simply have enlarged the controversy surrounding his act if he had. His act clearly showed that it's not that hard to intentionally misdirect Penn & Teller, and that you shouldn't accept the trophy if you do that.
@@mendelde Except he did legitimately fool them and he did it without 'cheating', or 'loopholes', or 'red herrings'. It wasn't the method that fooled them, but the effect. They thought it was a 'tear and restore' sleight, when it was pure illusion; he made them think one trick was a different trick.
Red herring is one of the tools magicians have and could perfectly be use in the show, Kostya Kimlat has talked a lot about it, even about the "false clues" he used in his two appearances on the show. "I know it doesn't seem fair, but hey, you guys started this game"- Kimlat in his second appearance.
Just so you know, Kostya *didn't* "fool" P&T with his routine. He sells a slight-of-hand technique called the *Roadrunner Cull* they know what it is, they bought the material, but it's wicked hard and Penn can't perform the card handling required to do it. Penn even mentions this in a podcast somewhere. So they awarded him a win, but they knew exactly what he was doing. It's reality TV don't believe everything you see.
The issue is that usually in magic red herrings are used to divert attention and make a trick appear cleaner, in fool us they're used to deliberately make a trick appear sloppy. Hell, what's to stop someone from throwing in a dozen false moves to the point where guessing the real method is entirely based on chance
@@CavanBooth1 Actually thinking about how the Roadrunner Cull is done, it's actually not *that* hard. The secret to making it look good isn't that it's hard, but because it's advanced-level slight-of-hand you have to do like 4 different things all at once... so you practise one thing at a time until you can do the full thing he does. Kostya's handling is perfect, but that's because it's his trick/technique it has to be perfect as he sells it to other magicians. And Rhea - the issue with Kostya and performers like him is not that at all, the issue is their performances are advertising pieces for magicians. That in itself is not a BAD thing, but calling someone a Fooler when you know how their trick works and you've practised it yourself is deceptive to the audience.
The fact that Jibrizy wasn't on this list is incredibly astounding. He blatantly lied about his method and only got away with it because of a technicality.
I agree, the only true fools are when there is no answer or P and T just "give up" rather than giving the "wrong" answer especially if there are false moves done to throw them off... It's why I really love when they just walk up shake hands and the trophy goes down.
Another one for "Part 2" would be Jean-Pierre Parent. Penn talked about it on his podcast, basically the producers allowed Allison to rehearse the trick with him cause she was nervous about it, and it "fooled" them because Penn/Teller assumed, per the rules, that she wasn't in on it thus it must be some new method.
Do elaborate on this. There's another where I'm pretty sure they were CERTAIN that the only way for the trick was to instant stooge Allison, but that was forbidden, so...(Which gives a differnt air to Penn's 'always angry' thing)
@Mitchell Anderson basically, all the known methods to do the trick require the person picked to be in on it/rehearsed. Since pre-show is normally not-allowed, P&T had to assume none of those known methods were possible cause they thought Allison was picked on the spot. If they had known she wasn't they would have gotten it easy.
I am actually curious about that, because I assume that Allison is given at least some information about how she will be interacting with the contestant. At least with basic health and safety stuff, like "this prop looks dangerous but it is safe because its rigged". I don't think she is actually going into her interactions totally blind.
@@glowingfish Not necesairily. As has been said, there is a judge-magician. They are aware of how the trick is done, so could decide if it was dangerous for an unaware participant or not.
Nick Einhorn was definitely legitimate - we all know he had to "trust" in the audience members to do their part, and they did. If a magician wants to pull of that type of risk, it's his or her perogative. I think a lot of us did not pick up on the method initially so good for Nick!
We were in Fountain Studios London in March 2011 for the filming of Nicks trick. Was a pleasure to watch. Have seen him do it twice more at magic club events and it's a great execution.
I remember the first time I saw Brynolf and Ljung's routine and as a Swede I was excited. But I was so disappointed and actually pretty ashamed of that stunt they pulled off, you hit the head of the nail, it's just not in the spirit of the show. I wouldn't be proud if I fooled them in that way.
Misdirection is misdirection; lots of magicians use false methods to hide their "real" trick. There shouldn't be a separate standard of using less trickery when trying to fool other magicians.
Loved your video breaking down the performances.... wish you would have used more clips from the show and explained how Penn & Teller were/weren't fooled. I've come to enjoy the channels that explain exactly how tricks were performed on the show because I love learning the theory behind various illusions.
I love his videos discussing P&T also. BUT you cannot use their content without getting a copyright claim that would send all the $$ to them. It used to be that as long as you were "reacting" to a video, you could get away with "fair use".. But those days are over. You can use about 5 seconds of a video before the content ID kicks in.
If I remember the morgan and west part, I saw it a long time ago. When they denied the deck swith, I immediately knew what they actually did and was surprised that pen and teller did not realize what was happening. It was not a deck switch, it was addition of a block of cards to the deck. Because the trick they did not need the entire deck to be switched out, only thing it required was for them to know what the few top cards were, so instead of switching the entire deck, the easier method is to just add those few cards onto the deck.
Deck manipulation, adding card, swith or subtract, cgi deck, double side card, are totally the same thing for me. The deck is change in order for the trick to work. I guess is stupid that penn has to be 100% specific about that, so the contestant always make million red hearing, P&T always give trophy to wonderfull trick even they know how to do it. This red hearing people just desperate and sad.
@@nickyminaj709 I absolutely agree. (Also, I'm a non-magician and the deck seemed unnecessarily bulgy to me. I watched the act and the not-quite-happy faces of M & W when they were accused of card switching gave it away. If P & T had been far off with their guess, the reaction would have been different. Maybe they honestly thought to get away with it and it wasn't a Red Herring at all.
The show has judges - if penn and teller feel they've been fooled, then they're fooled. If they can't tell, then the judges says yes or no. that means it really doesn't matter what the magic community says or not.
Remember the absolutely brilliant casino chip switches where Penn and Teller thought it was done with shells (chips hidden within chips)? Well they said as much and that ozzie magician accepted that he didn't fool them when he really did - and the adjudicator said nothing. It was only years later that they brought him back, apologized and gave him the trophy. The same thing happened with Piff the magic dragon. So....is the adjudicator stupid or what??
There’s also a fairness doctrine too. As Penn says, they don’t get 2 bites of the apple. They’re professional magicians after all, they’d eventually figure out any trick if given enough time. And in a grey area, they’d rather have a non-fooling Fooler like than a fooling non-fooler.
Nick Einhorn used the method of "instant stooge". He broke the rule in some sense. But what's strange to me is that Penn and Teller couldn't figure this out, which even I did instantly (one who even struggles with Penn's code words to understand most of the other tricks). Because the routine was so impossible, there was only one way it could have been done.
I understand that red herring means a very specific thing but I wanted to point out that the whole point behind magic is to use red herrings, aka sleight of hand. Make you look one way. Again, I know it means something different.
I think the trouble is how you would enforce a rule like that. In the first trick mentioned here, where it looked like a deck switch and they claimed they weren't trying to make it look like they did it, what do you do? You can't really have a rule that you're not allowed to move while someone blocks line of sight with Penn and Teller unless that movement is part of your method.
The issue with this idea is that the concept of red herring is nebulous and if strictly enforced would result in bad tricks. Too many red herrings is lame and yet with zero red herrings, the "too perfect" problem often arises, which not only makes it easy for P&T to guess but also makes the trick less satisfying for laymen as well. Misdirection is an essential part of a satisfying magic trick and misdirection very often (though not always) boils down to intentional red herrings.
What some of you are forgetting is that this is a competition. It's one thing to trick an audience, it's quite another thing to intentionally trick the judges in order to solicit a false positive that can grant a contestant a win. An honest win on Fool Us earns the contestant a fair amount of notoriety. A low-handed win on Fool Us should earn the contestant a black mark on their notoriety, and certainly a blackball from the Fool Us competition.
@@rabooey I agree there's a difference but I disagree that it's easy to draw the line. Consider: someone has a covered table on the stage and there's a moment when confederate *could* have planted an item through a trap door, but actually it was superhuman bit of sleight of hand. In fact, it is obvious that sleight of hand is the ONLY other way this hypothetical trick could be done, though it would be extremely difficult. According to a strict "no red herrings" philosophy, you aren't allowed to have a covered table, because that might lead them to suspect a method that wasn't used. Under this naive "zero tolerance for red herrings" philosophy, the trick would be diminished--both for professional magicians and for laymen--because sleight of hand is the ONLY other way it could be done, and that would be immediately obvious if the table were obviously ungimmicked. There is such a thing as being lame with red herrings, but *some* degree of red herrings are an essential part of most tricks, regardless of whether it's a layman or a pro watching you.
It is interesting that several of these tricks were in the Jonathan Ross era of the show, so maybe they made some of these standards clearer as they got further into production.
The Simon Coronel apology might be included in a part 2. P&T actually admitted they were wrong in their original judgement and awarded the trophy on a different show.
Furrrrthermore, I 100% support Brynolf & Ljung's BLATANT flaunting of a horrible switch. If they grabbed at that low-hanging fruit, fair play. I literally thought "omg they didn't....no wait....they didn't" as it happened. Really surprised Penn went for it. Loved this video btw even though you made me look at Jonathan.. :D
What I would like to see as a rule would be that if Penn and Teller make a guess which is 100% consistent with anything they could have observed, but it's not how the trick was done, the guess shouldn't count. The producer should very strongly encourage magicians to include "provers" to deal with any red herrings prior to Penn and Teller guessing them (e.g. making it look like a prop is "obviously" gimicked, but then inviting Penn and Teller to examine it thoroughly). It would be trivial for even a really bad "magician" to come up with a trick that could "fool" Penn and Teller if they only get one "guess". Simply carry a deck of cards behind a curtain for a few seconds at a time when it woul be trivial to switch decks, inspect the cards, rearrange the cards, or do whatever, in such a way that nobody who didn't have insidere knowledge could possibly know what was being done when. Such a performance could "fool" almost everyone, while at the same time being incredibly boring and not really fooling anywone.
This was Good! Brynolf and ljung were definitely trying to make it look like a switch. It's unfair because Penn and Teller only get one guess. In season 1 episode #1 There was a controversy with Benjamin Earl. He didn't do anything sneaky but Penn and ESPECIALLY Teller thought he knew how he did his card manipulations. Teller said he could actually perform the same thing. But they were told by the backstage magician that they did not know the methods. You can see the look on Teller's face when they had to award the Fooler Trophy. He was not happy! Penn and Teller came back later in the show to clear up the controversary.
I attended a workshop by Michael Ammar. In it, he talked about the effectiveness of convincing the audience that they knew how the trick was done. But the point was never to say, "Nope, I fooled you!" The point was that, if they thought they knew how the trick worked but were wrong, then you could really blow their minds by doing something that's impossible with the method they think you are using. This could be used effectively on FU, but it needs to be part of the act, not part of the follow-up discussion. Penn and Teller absolutely love red herrings when they are used in the way I described above, when P&T know immediately that they have been fooled. Penn has praised magicians for doing this (well, in his own pseudo-hateful "rat bastard" way of praising). But yes, using red herrings just to throw P&T off an otherwise weak trick so you win the trophy, that's not in the spirit of the show.
To my understanding at the time when Jay Sankey performed on Fool Us! Magicians were not allowed to challenge the ruling of Penn and Teller. There was a exception to the rule but I do not recall what it was.
One thing you don’t mention re: red herrings, is the difference in qualifications for close up card magic for pen and teller. They seem to apply a different methodology to close up card magic, which is even if they can suss out the method by deduction, if you do it so smoothly in front of them at table length that they don’t *see* you employ any of the methods, you fooled them.
Very interesting comment - thanks. That's a credit to P&T that they have to *see* the method, rather than work it out by deduction - and then take an educated guess.
Number two is tricky. Because every magician uses misdirection in some way or another. But how do you mislead spectators who know every trick in the book? I'm with you, though: the best ones are those where the routine is so smooth that P&T just miss the obvious things that are going on.
I really felt that Bryan Saint didn't deserve his phone-charger trophy either, because his focused simply on how technology worked, not an illusion, or slight of hand, or anything else that is "magic" in a traditional sense. It wouldn't fool anyone with more than a rudimentary understanding of how iPhones work, and banked on P&T not knowing the technology, not them not knowing the magic.
Number 1 is really nice imo. It's not super fun for anyone, aside from him. It must feels nice to know he secretely fooled/confused a lot of magicians. It's the ultimate power move.
It was actually you who fooled your viewers into thinking that they're about to see a video about "The Magician" who broke the fool us show. 1. You mentioned 5 magicians, not The Magician; 2. You were just complaining about how they used red herrings to fool penn and teller. You admitted that what they did were allowed, and the tricks didn't broke the show.
To me the absolute worst thing a magician has done on the show is the guy who had the hook contraption that was supposed to pierce the eye, then coercing Alyson to put her eye in the contraption. The whole coercion is in poor taste, goes on way, WAY too long and I consider it to be psychological violence. Alyson looks really uncomfortable and like she's about to yell 'cut' or ask for help. There should be an absolute rule in the show that any trick that has any potential danger must never be done on any other person than the magician and his accomplices. There are other magicians too on the show that basically sexually harass people or behave in a creepy way that is not acceptable.
@@CavanBooth1 These are from the 'All foolers' RUclips list. Danny Ray was the absolute worst with the coercion. John Archer had inappropriate jokes, Christian Engblom forced the female participant to touch his chest unnecessarily and 'joked' about touching his bum, only for the female participant. Vitaly Beckman had questionable knife handling in his second appearance, and at one point, pointed the tip of the knife toward Alyson. There are many, many others, but I can't think of more examples right now. In general, I think the reason many people dislike magicians is the way most of them perform: either being really obnoxious or downright creepy.
About Nick Heinhorn, his trick was a lot less risky than it seems... you are in a controlled environment, on national TV, in a pre-recorded show. Spectators tend to play along, they know they'll make an absolute arse of themselves on a stage if they screw things up. Meanwhile, when we perform at the local pub.....
I hate those "false methods" and I agree with you: the point is to make atrick that makes everybody think "I have no idea how they did that" no "oh they did that thing" when they actually did another thing. It's supposed to look like magic, not like deck-switching or whatever. For me the worst was aguy I think named James Brown. I think it wasn't aired, but it was uploaded to RUclips by the magician. What I remember is that it was a mentalism trick, but he asked Penn and Teller to go check if something was legit, in a way that they had to be practically isolated from the magician so that he could do whatever he wanted while they were not watching. In the end he apparently got the fooler trophy on a technicality, but the trick was just bad. It wasn't "I wonder how he did that", but more like "there are like 700 ways he could've done it while he was hiding, it's just that we don't know which of those 700 ways he used".
I don't think putting in a false move or a red herring goes against the spirit of the show. The contestants are trying to fool two guys who, together, have over 100 years of experience in the field of magic. And it's a given that P&T are trying to stay two or three steps ahead of the contestant, observing the set-up and anticipating the payoff, so they're looking for three or four ways it could be done, and they're overly sensitive to them. So a contestant who figures, "Okay, they'll be looking for a deck switch, so I'll give them what looks like a deck switch to lower their guard," well, that's part of the gamesmanship that magic is based on.
they know some of them they want to fool them, and they agree on the method: technicality, distraction, etc - because they know the techniques, so sometimes they enforce a "well guess A or B" and they guess wrong.
What you described in Nick Einhorn's case sounds like instant stooging. And I believe there was a discussion either on the show itself or in Penn's podcast, where I seem to remember that they are fine with instant stooging. Anyway, great video, thank you very much!
On red herrings. Penn says a number of times on various episodes that red herrings are allowed and no problem. So fooling using a red herring is a success for the fooler. On Jay Sankey. If you listen to Sankey's "I fooled them" post and Penn's reply video, you see the real problem was that Jay never took the time to understand what the show was about. Penn & Teller really want to be fooled by magicians who can pull that off, and Jay didn't get that. So he created a tempest in a teapot. The sad thing about this is that the show changed format to prevent this kind of controversy going forward. Before Sankey, the interaction between P&T and the guest magician was authentic and interesting. After Sankey's performance and his video, the judges controlled the interaction and let the guest magician know through a code word Penn would use whether they had been fooled or not. Made the whole discussing during P&T's asking questions and making a guess much less fun to watch. What Sankey actually said he did in his reveal video was that he did each trick, say 4 times, 3 known times and once in a new, unique way.
If there’s no rule against it, it’s fair game. It is easy to add a rule and they didn’t. The show is literally called fool us and you can’t be surprised that someone try’s to fool them. You disagree with the method but the rules don’t. It’s smart. Every magic trick is a lie. You are saying “hey, you have to lie in a way that I like.”
I'm surprised you didn't mention Garret Thomas' performance. He is an excellent magician and his ring trick was fantastic. I remember a lot of people saying he only won on a wording technicality rather than actually fooling Penn and Teller. I'm pretty sure the performance is still available to watch on RUclips. What do you think?
If you listen to Penn's condition of fooling them while explaining how its done in Garret's performance, Garret didn't lie at at all, he fooled them fair and square.
I never really understood why that one was so controversial. He sells the trick, so the method is readily available, and Penn used extremely precise wording. They weren't technically wrong, they were completely wrong!
About the switch Brynolf & Ljung did: they weren't performing for regular schmucks like me, they were performing for top notch magicians, so they had to adapt their misdirection accordingly. I don't think it's cheating or not believing in their effect as you put it, just another level of misdirection that Penn and Teller fell for.
Dani did not have any stooges. All 4 of the people around the table were not in on the trick. Dani actually fooled them all. Penn gave Dani the highest compliment saying that Dani is better the Juan his teacher. Juan is a well respected magician and a true master at his art. Dani fooled everyone of them hands down. Ive had the privilege to talk to Dani amd be in one of his lectures and he is truly a master at his craft. Sorry my friend but I'm gonna have to disagree with you.
@@miked4152 Well that makes the trick all the more impressive to me, my thought was he actually made Allison force a card some way. If not, its even better!!
@@EKLAVYAVEER of course he made her force a card. That doesn't mean she was a stooge or in on it. He was in control the whole time. From the beginning to the end. He knew he could get one over on Alison because she is not a magician. The outcome could have been different if it was Teller that he forced the card but he didn't he did it to Alison
I remember most of them, but n2 specially. I bet that when they do this trick for general audiences they don't do the fake switch, so I think it's fair they are in this list, and I felt bad for P&T.
Fake switches shouldn’t be hated on. That’s fooling people as it is. Then it’s also similar to disappearing tricks as a coin doesn’t disappear, it’s all to do with angles and deceiving someone’s eyes
Also, about the whole "no stooges etc." thing -- yes, Penn&Teller love a good show, but at the end of the day this is about "magic", and I just don't see stooges as "magic". And yeah, I think that "red herrings", like showing a fake switch, should not be allowed. Unless the rules are also changed so that any method that can do the trick and matches exactly what was seen counts as "not fooled", but that might cause problems with stuff like "did you use black magic" where it might not be immediately obvious whether black magic could even do an effect. However, as a closing thing -- I'm not an expert on the show, but I believe there might be a different possible controversy with Penn&Teller breaking the rules(?). And that's the Stanley Zhou performance, where they basically kind of surprise-attacked him so he'd hand them the prop he was using... it didn't help them for some reason and it was still a fool, but it felt very different from other performances where the magician himself ended his performance with something like "you can keep the cards if you want to", as well as situations where Penn basically asked to examine a prop AFTER their discussion, and he'd basically use it confirm that he was right, or outright declare that he was wrong and they were fooled.
So I'm not apart of the magic community but love watching and learning how talented magicians secretly are. I thought for sure the most controversial fool us would go to Jean-Pierre Parent, as he basically completely cheated the rules. I couldn't find it now but there was an interview somewhere with the producer saying it was his fault P&T got fooled as he allowed Alyson to practice the trick back stage before the performance. If I remember correctly producer said JP was a nervous wreck, producer then decided to calm him he would make this exception to allow Alyson to practice the trick. Which then allowed JP to show her what she had to do to make the trick work, this also is why Alyson is so lively during the routine as she knew the trick. P&T knowing a random spectator would not have been able to pull it off without being in on the trick, had no idea how he could have done it any other way.
The show is called "fool us" . Red herrings are accomplishing exactly that. If (after 9 seasons...) they wouldn't have wanted red herrings to be a part of the methods used ,they would have stipulated it in the rules. End of story.
@@CavanBooth1 Imagine a TV show that's just starting now. Now imagine you in 10 years time (it won't feel like much time at all). Then imagine someone on RUclips talking about that 2022 TV show being 'longest running', and how this person used to watch it when they got home from school and it being one of their earliest memories. Trust me, you'll find it funny.
Do illusionists have a Code of Ethics? Maybe for you, Cavan, those magicians did not do right. But the purpose of the show is not "to please Cavan", but to fool Penn and Teller. Did they?
If you know me, you know I love unorthodox methods. Camera tricks, stooges... all fair game. I make it very clear I'm only talking about the rules and confines of this show, purely because it interests me!
I agree with the number one but for a different reason. You go on Fool Us to fool them ON THE SHOW and making them accept that on the show. Going on RUclips AFTER saying "I fooled them secretly" , it's acting like a 10 years-old boy AND it's clickbait. Jay Sankey is a really good and (somewhat creative magician), but he has a lot of controversy surrounding him ( that Fool US thing, some of his protects that are really bad ( * cough * gemini pouch *cough*) , his contract with Penguin Magic, etc.). Not really good marketing moves
What you have to give Sankey is that he said he didn't fool them out of respect for them. So in a kind of way, he felt a bit of "shame" or "guilt" for using this moves without using them I guess.
As a complete layperson who can almost never see how tricks are done, I've been wondering if Penn & Teller give an automatic Fooler to any teen or younger magicians who show good form and effort in their performance. Some are obviously incredible, but just on the balance of statistics: I don't think I've ever seen a minor on the show who didn't get a trophy. I don't see this a being particularly disingenuous... It's magic, it's Penn & Teller, it'd be a great way to support young upcoming magicians. I wouldn't mind in the least if it was true. But I wouldn't even know where to begin to prove it, or if I would even want to. Alternately, though, maybe you have to be really really good before P&T will let you on their show if you're under 21. That could be what causes the high percentage.
I thought maybe Ben Earl would’ve made the list. He was performing his real ace, cutting routine, and it seems like he was awarded a Fuller, based on semantics. P & T referenced “ false cuts and shuffles “, when it was, in fact, real cuts and shuffles, with slug controls, etc etc. Technically, they weren’t false, but the way they were describing his method. It seemed like they weren’t really fooled 🤷♂️
I think the most impressive part of his routine, is that he spoke after the fact, about having P&T provide a deck. Turned out, Teller had been sitting on it throughout the show, swamp butting it, and he said the condition of the cards were terrible. He said he had to change up some of the techniques, based on how sticky they were, but he still managed to kill it
What did number 3 do. I'm learning magic now but I don't know much mentalism. Did he just tell them what to say? That seems way too risky so it must be something else. Can you message me somehow?
The cards that he gave the participants to read would've instructed them to fill in the information themselves rather than the info actually being written on them. I don't even think it's all that risky, I'd guess the vast majority of people would play along rather than be asses and ruin it.
I can see both sides of the coin for sure. I will say.. not that it will make a difference to some people, but there’s some questionable things happening on the production side too. All I’m saying is that at the end of the day it’s a TV show first and a magic show second. Based on things I know about the show, I personally don’t see an issue with what these folks did .
Number 5 could be down to slightly sloppy stage management, not paying attention to an assistant crossing in front of a performer because it didn't matter to the method. Number 2, blatant, but as a non-magician I didn't know if that was bad or just playing the game well. There's no reason they couldn't have guessed the real method, IF they noticed it. Which they didn't. So likely this would have fooled them anyway...?
i read that Penn discussed that Jay Sankey controversy on his podcast but the url on podcast site is broken and there is no that episode in Spotify. Maybe someone have it? it's called Episode 198 - Love You or Hate You, We Can't Remember or Pronounce Your Name
The only possibility I can think of that you mean with Nick is that he had an "insert your name here" fill in the blank and the rest was fine. Penn qualified his statement by saying "not knowing their names" so Nick could have stepped up and confessed. However, this would have ruined the trick completely. I wonder about a few of these types of outcomes that I've watched if they decide to sacrifice the win in the name of saving a magician's trick. That said, I'm not sure that was how it was done and I have my own theory. But if it was, it was with P&T's blessing, so...yay.
Honestly ive never liked Brynolf and Ljung (pronounced "briy-nolf" and "yung") because of this, also theyre a household name in sweden for doing extremely basic magic that is only ever impressive to "muggles" who has never seen more advanced magic in their life, their fool us performance is no joke one of the more advanced tricks theyve done
The one with all those people on stage,it isn't his fault Penn misspoke. He didn't break any rules. I was sure he was going to have that guy who was moving his ring from one finger to another without taking the ring off on this list. He lied to them,blatantly. Penn asked him if his ring was gimmicked and he said no. Originally Penn asked him if it was gimmicked a certain way and that way it wasn't. I would have had no problem with that. Again,not his fault. But then Penn asked him straight out "You Didn't Gimmick The Ring In Any Way?" He said no,that was a lie. He said it was gimmicked in a certain way on a podcast. He did something with it that it made a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz noise. He lied to them.
Great topic! I generally feel like any misdirection used is fair game, but I also feel like Sankey's was not in the spirit of the show. His appearance [on the show] had nothing to do with wanting to win the trophy, and another less-successful magician would have appreciated that slot more, and could have gotten some exposure. I still love Sankey, and I enjoyed his act...but...yeah. On an unrelated note, my Camp 52 playing cards arrived today and they're awesome! The stock is great! They feel and handle GREAT! The artwork is perfect! It's a great deck! Love it! I am in the states, and the shipping time was just less than three weeks. Thank you!
Why is there such a big deal about HOW they were fooled? This is a serious question. Isn't that THE ONE AND ONLY POINT to magic? Think about it: No matter how good you are at ANYthing, there will always be someone who can and will beat you. They got fooled under their own rules. Bow down.
Some things that should be more controvesial though is, how they seem to be willingly fooled by some magicians that they have respect for. Example Chris Capehart.
Speaking about red herrings i gotta ask what are your thoughts about Mathieu Bich's trick? Was it red herring or not? This gotta be one of my favourite tricks in the entire show's history...
I remember number 2 annoyed me like crazy. No issues with number 3, he had balls of steel! Number 1 is fine. He obviously did it for the luls. He didn't try to get a trophy out of it.
One that always bothered me, even though I infinitely respect him, was the David Roth performance. RIP to David but in the spirit of the show being fair, I believe (I can't seem to find the video on YT right now so correct me if anyone else remembers it) he was doing his Hanging Coins routine. You mean to tell me, especially Teller of all people, didn't know this routine? I'm willing to bet anything that he not only owns Expert Coin Magic but has studied in indepth, a classic in magic and the routine is considered fairly basic now. I believe they let him win because of who he is. Which is unfortunate because some other legendary magicians have performed, even classics, and would add a twist specifically to fool them. Though I think Gertner doing his Cups and Balls is guilty of this but his extra ending in Unshuffled was an example of the latter.
Cavan, you seem to forgot this guy named "Kolos", who fooled Penn and teller with his card trick. Also quite dissapointed with Penn and teller not noticing the signed card, totally a different signed card. This guy seems to be lucky enough.
Nice. I was sure that one of them would've been the guy with the finger-ring who was passing it through solid objects, including Teller's fingers. He claimed the ring was gimmicked. What?
Well, the producer knows about trick and method in advance! So there is really no good chance for cheaters. It is always up to the producer to come up with that performance or not
Sankey was neither the first nor last to put some magician herrings in his show, I think he did this to snarkily point out the rules have issues. As for why he didn’t just do an original trick: This is just speculation. Sankey sells tricks. P&T make money exposing and undermining tricks. Sankey might have a bone to pick with them and this is how he did did that. So when he’s invited on the show, rather than reveal one of his original tricks to the judging panel, he patronizes P&T with re-engineered staples to one up P&T. Nobody said geniuses are kindly people!
I watched 2 tricks of Axel Adler on P&T and both were amazing, realy magical (to me at least). But then the Penn code lang part was cut. So I started to wonder if there was anything weird there or simply Axel didn't want to give the audience any hints that we might find in Penn's code lang.
The funny thing is sometimes people do the opposite and break the premise of the show, correctly? Like when Daniel Madison went on and flashed everything he did to Penn and Teller so he wouldn't fool them but they would say specifically that he was better at the tech he was using than anyone else.
A bit of the same idea was when Shawn Farquhar fooled P&T the second time. But that turned out to be a joke. The audience laughed watching the foolish pranky act. Which in the end turned out to be magical after all. He fooled them. But I bet P&T have later figured it out. Because I have.
Watch PART 2: ruclips.net/video/ChgcGQv7KbY/видео.html
Thanks for a matured take on this.
What about that lady (from Australia, if I am not wrong).. whose claim to fame.. rested on her being the daughter of a famed magician.
.
In one of her performances on Fool US.. she did a Houdini type escape.
(P and T got check the props BEFORE, as if that mattered).
.
I think.. in that one.. the producers and or the channel wanted her to be declared aa a Fooler.
.
And so.. in that sense, the show seems a bit scripted.
.
Pardon my English. It is not my first language.
.
Also.. I am not judging anyone here.
.
Much as I have respect for the performers, for the on screen judges (P and T) and the backstage judges.
.
I am merely adding to your topic.. that of the controversial performances list.
.
Thank you.
For the #2 spot and the "red herring" , Penn has said on the show that a large part of magic is Game Theory. Wouldn't the "red herring" fall into that definition?
As for Jay Sankey, it was the video that Jay put out that *really* set off P&T. Fair? I can't say. Game theory? hmm maybe? but....
man, finally somebody is talking about this! Unfortunatley I never saw the response-video by Mr. Sankey, but I remember his performance well and I have been familiar with his works for ... more than a dacade. when I saw the performance - specifically the card restore I was wondering "why would he use a method that leaves him with dirty scraps when he 20 years earlier described a clean version of that in a book" and then it dawned on me - This was a Andy Kaufman-esque meta performance! (at least in my head :)
regardless of how it was percieved afterwards - I like the idea to "let me do the good version while pretending to do the bad version of the trick in order to make you think you are not fooled when infact you are.." - again i haven't seen his video, but still: he took a risk - maybe it did not turn out as planned, but I still and I respect that.
in perfect 20-20 hindsight: the mere fact of doing that on yt was probably ill advised. maybe letting P&T know privately - but not obvious would have worked.
something like "penn or teller sees him 20 yrs later in the Magic Castle and he does sth - then it dawns on them that they had been trolled 20 yrs earlier"
Penn has said to a couple of people, "We know that you did a switch, but we could not see it at all. We don't know when you did the switch. So you fooled us."
Respect to them for those acknowledgements.
My issue with the Jay Sankey performance is that he accepted that he didn't fool them while on the show. He then publicly brags that he really did fool them when discussing it on his RUclips channel. Perhaps he had a change of heart while on Fool US, and believed that he wasn't playing fair by giving false leads. In any case, he should have spoken up truthfully while on the show, or kept quiet about it later. Trying to have it both ways is one of the biggest issues.
He might have accepted it since it probably was part of a bigger plan from the beginning.
Whaaaa 😭
I believe he thought it would've been unfair to claim the trophy based on misdirection, it would simply have enlarged the controversy surrounding his act if he had. His act clearly showed that it's not that hard to intentionally misdirect Penn & Teller, and that you shouldn't accept the trophy if you do that.
He pushed the bounds of the rules of the show for name recognition to sell more of his magic effects! Big money for him!
@@mendelde
Except he did legitimately fool them and he did it without 'cheating', or 'loopholes', or 'red herrings'. It wasn't the method that fooled them, but the effect. They thought it was a 'tear and restore' sleight, when it was pure illusion; he made them think one trick was a different trick.
Red herring is one of the tools magicians have and could perfectly be use in the show, Kostya Kimlat has talked a lot about it, even about the "false clues" he used in his two appearances on the show. "I know it doesn't seem fair, but hey, you guys started this game"- Kimlat in his second appearance.
Ha love that line
Just so you know, Kostya *didn't* "fool" P&T with his routine. He sells a slight-of-hand technique called the *Roadrunner Cull* they know what it is, they bought the material, but it's wicked hard and Penn can't perform the card handling required to do it. Penn even mentions this in a podcast somewhere. So they awarded him a win, but they knew exactly what he was doing. It's reality TV don't believe everything you see.
The issue is that usually in magic red herrings are used to divert attention and make a trick appear cleaner, in fool us they're used to deliberately make a trick appear sloppy. Hell, what's to stop someone from throwing in a dozen false moves to the point where guessing the real method is entirely based on chance
@@CavanBooth1 Actually thinking about how the Roadrunner Cull is done, it's actually not *that* hard. The secret to making it look good isn't that it's hard, but because it's advanced-level slight-of-hand you have to do like 4 different things all at once... so you practise one thing at a time until you can do the full thing he does. Kostya's handling is perfect, but that's because it's his trick/technique it has to be perfect as he sells it to other magicians. And Rhea - the issue with Kostya and performers like him is not that at all, the issue is their performances are advertising pieces for magicians. That in itself is not a BAD thing, but calling someone a Fooler when you know how their trick works and you've practised it yourself is deceptive to the audience.
Kimlat 🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟
The fact that Jibrizy wasn't on this list is incredibly astounding. He blatantly lied about his method and only got away with it because of a technicality.
What did he do?
What did he do?
What did he do?
What did he do?
What did he do?
I agree, the only true fools are when there is no answer or P and T just "give up" rather than giving the "wrong" answer especially if there are false moves done to throw them off... It's why I really love when they just walk up shake hands and the trophy goes down.
Another one for "Part 2" would be Jean-Pierre Parent. Penn talked about it on his podcast, basically the producers allowed Allison to rehearse the trick with him cause she was nervous about it, and it "fooled" them because Penn/Teller assumed, per the rules, that she wasn't in on it thus it must be some new method.
I was about to mention this
Do elaborate on this. There's another where I'm pretty sure they were CERTAIN that the only way for the trick was to instant stooge Allison, but that was forbidden, so...(Which gives a differnt air to Penn's 'always angry' thing)
@Mitchell Anderson basically, all the known methods to do the trick require the person picked to be in on it/rehearsed. Since pre-show is normally not-allowed, P&T had to assume none of those known methods were possible cause they thought Allison was picked on the spot. If they had known she wasn't they would have gotten it easy.
I am actually curious about that, because I assume that Allison is given at least some information about how she will be interacting with the contestant. At least with basic health and safety stuff, like "this prop looks dangerous but it is safe because its rigged". I don't think she is actually going into her interactions totally blind.
@@glowingfish Not necesairily. As has been said, there is a judge-magician. They are aware of how the trick is done, so could decide if it was dangerous for an unaware participant or not.
Nick Einhorn was definitely legitimate - we all know he had to "trust" in the audience members to do their part, and they did. If a magician wants to pull of that type of risk, it's his or her perogative. I think a lot of us did not pick up on the method initially so good for Nick!
Nick’s act was fantastic. He really deserved to win.
Oh 100%! I love the method he used 🔥
We were in Fountain Studios London in March 2011 for the filming of Nicks trick. Was a pleasure to watch. Have seen him do it twice more at magic club events and it's a great execution.
I remember the first time I saw Brynolf and Ljung's routine and as a Swede I was excited. But I was so disappointed and actually pretty ashamed of that stunt they pulled off, you hit the head of the nail, it's just not in the spirit of the show. I wouldn't be proud if I fooled them in that way.
Misdirection is misdirection; lots of magicians use false methods to hide their "real" trick. There shouldn't be a separate standard of using less trickery when trying to fool other magicians.
Loved your video breaking down the performances.... wish you would have used more clips from the show and explained how Penn & Teller were/weren't fooled. I've come to enjoy the channels that explain exactly how tricks were performed on the show because I love learning the theory behind various illusions.
I love his videos discussing P&T also. BUT you cannot use their content without getting a copyright claim that would send all the $$ to them. It used to be that as long as you were "reacting" to a video, you could get away with "fair use".. But those days are over. You can use about 5 seconds of a video before the content ID kicks in.
If I remember the morgan and west part, I saw it a long time ago. When they denied the deck swith, I immediately knew what they actually did and was surprised that pen and teller did not realize what was happening. It was not a deck switch, it was addition of a block of cards to the deck. Because the trick they did not need the entire deck to be switched out, only thing it required was for them to know what the few top cards were, so instead of switching the entire deck, the easier method is to just add those few cards onto the deck.
I wonder if they kind of switch off once they think they know what the method is.
Deck manipulation, adding card, swith or subtract, cgi deck, double side card, are totally the same thing for me. The deck is change in order for the trick to work.
I guess is stupid that penn has to be 100% specific about that, so the contestant always make million red hearing, P&T always give trophy to wonderfull trick even they know how to do it. This red hearing people just desperate and sad.
@@nickyminaj709 I absolutely agree. (Also, I'm a non-magician and the deck seemed unnecessarily bulgy to me. I watched the act and the not-quite-happy faces of M & W when they were accused of card switching gave it away. If P & T had been far off with their guess, the reaction would have been different. Maybe they honestly thought to get away with it and it wasn't a Red Herring at all.
The show has judges - if penn and teller feel they've been fooled, then they're fooled. If they can't tell, then the judges says yes or no. that means it really doesn't matter what the magic community says or not.
Yes agree 💯
Remember the absolutely brilliant casino chip switches where Penn and Teller thought it was done with shells (chips hidden within chips)? Well they said as much and that ozzie magician accepted that he didn't fool them when he really did - and the adjudicator said nothing. It was only years later that they brought him back, apologized and gave him the trophy. The same thing happened with Piff the magic dragon. So....is the adjudicator stupid or what??
There’s also a fairness doctrine too. As Penn says, they don’t get 2 bites of the apple. They’re professional magicians after all, they’d eventually figure out any trick if given enough time. And in a grey area, they’d rather have a non-fooling Fooler like than a fooling non-fooler.
Nick Einhorn used the method of "instant stooge". He broke the rule in some sense. But what's strange to me is that Penn and Teller couldn't figure this out, which even I did instantly (one who even struggles with Penn's code words to understand most of the other tricks). Because the routine was so impossible, there was only one way it could have been done.
So, Jay Sankey essentially did a sneaky spin on Teller's "Looks simple, doesn't it?" cigarette routine.
There should 100% be a "No Red Herrings" rule for the show. Thanks for this very interesting and inciteful video! 😀
I understand that red herring means a very specific thing but I wanted to point out that the whole point behind magic is to use red herrings, aka sleight of hand. Make you look one way. Again, I know it means something different.
I think the trouble is how you would enforce a rule like that. In the first trick mentioned here, where it looked like a deck switch and they claimed they weren't trying to make it look like they did it, what do you do? You can't really have a rule that you're not allowed to move while someone blocks line of sight with Penn and Teller unless that movement is part of your method.
The issue with this idea is that the concept of red herring is nebulous and if strictly enforced would result in bad tricks. Too many red herrings is lame and yet with zero red herrings, the "too perfect" problem often arises, which not only makes it easy for P&T to guess but also makes the trick less satisfying for laymen as well. Misdirection is an essential part of a satisfying magic trick and misdirection very often (though not always) boils down to intentional red herrings.
What some of you are forgetting is that this is a competition. It's one thing to trick an audience, it's quite another thing to intentionally trick the judges in order to solicit a false positive that can grant a contestant a win. An honest win on Fool Us earns the contestant a fair amount of notoriety. A low-handed win on Fool Us should earn the contestant a black mark on their notoriety, and certainly a blackball from the Fool Us competition.
@@rabooey I agree there's a difference but I disagree that it's easy to draw the line. Consider: someone has a covered table on the stage and there's a moment when confederate *could* have planted an item through a trap door, but actually it was superhuman bit of sleight of hand. In fact, it is obvious that sleight of hand is the ONLY other way this hypothetical trick could be done, though it would be extremely difficult. According to a strict "no red herrings" philosophy, you aren't allowed to have a covered table, because that might lead them to suspect a method that wasn't used. Under this naive "zero tolerance for red herrings" philosophy, the trick would be diminished--both for professional magicians and for laymen--because sleight of hand is the ONLY other way it could be done, and that would be immediately obvious if the table were obviously ungimmicked.
There is such a thing as being lame with red herrings, but *some* degree of red herrings are an essential part of most tricks, regardless of whether it's a layman or a pro watching you.
It is interesting that several of these tricks were in the Jonathan Ross era of the show, so maybe they made some of these standards clearer as they got further into production.
Garrett Thomas 100% should be number 1
The Simon Coronel apology might be included in a part 2. P&T actually admitted they were wrong in their original judgement and awarded the trophy on a different show.
Furrrrthermore, I 100% support Brynolf & Ljung's BLATANT flaunting of a horrible switch. If they grabbed at that low-hanging fruit, fair play. I literally thought "omg they didn't....no wait....they didn't" as it happened. Really surprised Penn went for it. Loved this video btw even though you made me look at Jonathan.. :D
What I would like to see as a rule would be that if Penn and Teller make a guess which is 100% consistent with anything they could have observed, but it's not how the trick was done, the guess shouldn't count. The producer should very strongly encourage magicians to include "provers" to deal with any red herrings prior to Penn and Teller guessing them (e.g. making it look like a prop is "obviously" gimicked, but then inviting Penn and Teller to examine it thoroughly). It would be trivial for even a really bad "magician" to come up with a trick that could "fool" Penn and Teller if they only get one "guess". Simply carry a deck of cards behind a curtain for a few seconds at a time when it woul be trivial to switch decks, inspect the cards, rearrange the cards, or do whatever, in such a way that nobody who didn't have insidere knowledge could possibly know what was being done when. Such a performance could "fool" almost everyone, while at the same time being incredibly boring and not really fooling anywone.
This was Good! Brynolf and ljung were definitely trying to make it look like a switch. It's unfair because Penn and Teller only get one guess. In season 1 episode #1 There was a controversy with Benjamin Earl. He didn't do anything sneaky but Penn and ESPECIALLY Teller thought he knew how he did his card manipulations. Teller said he could actually perform the same thing. But they were told by the backstage magician that they did not know the methods. You can see the look on Teller's face when they had to award the Fooler Trophy. He was not happy! Penn and Teller came back later in the show to clear up the controversary.
I attended a workshop by Michael Ammar. In it, he talked about the effectiveness of convincing the audience that they knew how the trick was done. But the point was never to say, "Nope, I fooled you!" The point was that, if they thought they knew how the trick worked but were wrong, then you could really blow their minds by doing something that's impossible with the method they think you are using.
This could be used effectively on FU, but it needs to be part of the act, not part of the follow-up discussion. Penn and Teller absolutely love red herrings when they are used in the way I described above, when P&T know immediately that they have been fooled. Penn has praised magicians for doing this (well, in his own pseudo-hateful "rat bastard" way of praising). But yes, using red herrings just to throw P&T off an otherwise weak trick so you win the trophy, that's not in the spirit of the show.
To my understanding at the time when Jay Sankey performed on Fool Us! Magicians were not allowed to challenge the ruling of Penn and Teller. There was a exception to the rule but I do not recall what it was.
One thing you don’t mention re: red herrings, is the difference in qualifications for close up card magic for pen and teller.
They seem to apply a different methodology to close up card magic, which is even if they can suss out the method by deduction, if you do it so smoothly in front of them at table length that they don’t *see* you employ any of the methods, you fooled them.
Very interesting comment - thanks. That's a credit to P&T that they have to *see* the method, rather than work it out by deduction - and then take an educated guess.
Number two is tricky. Because every magician uses misdirection in some way or another. But how do you mislead spectators who know every trick in the book? I'm with you, though: the best ones are those where the routine is so smooth that P&T just miss the obvious things that are going on.
I really felt that Bryan Saint didn't deserve his phone-charger trophy either, because his focused simply on how technology worked, not an illusion, or slight of hand, or anything else that is "magic" in a traditional sense. It wouldn't fool anyone with more than a rudimentary understanding of how iPhones work, and banked on P&T not knowing the technology, not them not knowing the magic.
how does iphones work with ear plugs ps copperfield says he gets the Teknowledgy first and later on the public uses it buy buying it in stores
Number 1 is really nice imo. It's not super fun for anyone, aside from him. It must feels nice to know he secretely fooled/confused a lot of magicians. It's the ultimate power move.
It was actually you who fooled your viewers into thinking that they're about to see a video about "The Magician" who broke the fool us show.
1. You mentioned 5 magicians, not The Magician;
2. You were just complaining about how they used red herrings to fool penn and teller. You admitted that what they did were allowed, and the tricks didn't broke the show.
Number 2 did something completely legal in magic: MISDIRECTION. And Penn & Teller fell. Nothing wrong with it 😂
To me the absolute worst thing a magician has done on the show is the guy who had the hook contraption that was supposed to pierce the eye, then coercing Alyson to put her eye in the contraption. The whole coercion is in poor taste, goes on way, WAY too long and I consider it to be psychological violence. Alyson looks really uncomfortable and like she's about to yell 'cut' or ask for help. There should be an absolute rule in the show that any trick that has any potential danger must never be done on any other person than the magician and his accomplices. There are other magicians too on the show that basically sexually harass people or behave in a creepy way that is not acceptable.
Yeah, thats not on.
As for the harassment, which magician are you thinking of?
@@CavanBooth1 These are from the 'All foolers' RUclips list. Danny Ray was the absolute worst with the coercion. John Archer had inappropriate jokes, Christian Engblom forced the female participant to touch his chest unnecessarily and 'joked' about touching his bum, only for the female participant. Vitaly Beckman had questionable knife handling in his second appearance, and at one point, pointed the tip of the knife toward Alyson. There are many, many others, but I can't think of more examples right now.
In general, I think the reason many people dislike magicians is the way most of them perform: either being really obnoxious or downright creepy.
About Nick Heinhorn, his trick was a lot less risky than it seems... you are in a controlled environment, on national TV, in a pre-recorded show. Spectators tend to play along, they know they'll make an absolute arse of themselves on a stage if they screw things up. Meanwhile, when we perform at the local pub.....
Oh true, environment plays a huge factor! But still, he must have been nervous
I do NOT believe that ANYONE can fool Penn & Teller. They know too much.
I hate those "false methods" and I agree with you: the point is to make atrick that makes everybody think "I have no idea how they did that" no "oh they did that thing" when they actually did another thing. It's supposed to look like magic, not like deck-switching or whatever.
For me the worst was aguy I think named James Brown. I think it wasn't aired, but it was uploaded to RUclips by the magician. What I remember is that it was a mentalism trick, but he asked Penn and Teller to go check if something was legit, in a way that they had to be practically isolated from the magician so that he could do whatever he wanted while they were not watching. In the end he apparently got the fooler trophy on a technicality, but the trick was just bad. It wasn't "I wonder how he did that", but more like "there are like 700 ways he could've done it while he was hiding, it's just that we don't know which of those 700 ways he used".
I don't think putting in a false move or a red herring goes against the spirit of the show. The contestants are trying to fool two guys who, together, have over 100 years of experience in the field of magic. And it's a given that P&T are trying to stay two or three steps ahead of the contestant, observing the set-up and anticipating the payoff, so they're looking for three or four ways it could be done, and they're overly sensitive to them. So a contestant who figures, "Okay, they'll be looking for a deck switch, so I'll give them what looks like a deck switch to lower their guard," well, that's part of the gamesmanship that magic is based on.
so on number 4, if I remember correctly, penn and teller thought there was a deck switch, when there wasn't.
No stooges ?
The first appearance of the shocker ?
Piff the Magic Dragon ? “My girlfriend is named….”
I’m pretty sure there’s been some stooges
they know some of them they want to fool them, and they agree on the method: technicality, distraction, etc - because they know the techniques, so sometimes they enforce a "well guess A or B" and they guess wrong.
What you described in Nick Einhorn's case sounds like instant stooging. And I believe there was a discussion either on the show itself or in Penn's podcast, where I seem to remember that they are fine with instant stooging.
Anyway, great video, thank you very much!
Pretty much. He's not the only guy to have used it on the show either.
On red herrings. Penn says a number of times on various episodes that red herrings are allowed and no problem. So fooling using a red herring is a success for the fooler.
On Jay Sankey. If you listen to Sankey's "I fooled them" post and Penn's reply video, you see the real problem was that Jay never took the time to understand what the show was about. Penn & Teller really want to be fooled by magicians who can pull that off, and Jay didn't get that. So he created a tempest in a teapot. The sad thing about this is that the show changed format to prevent this kind of controversy going forward. Before Sankey, the interaction between P&T and the guest magician was authentic and interesting. After Sankey's performance and his video, the judges controlled the interaction and let the guest magician know through a code word Penn would use whether they had been fooled or not. Made the whole discussing during P&T's asking questions and making a guess much less fun to watch.
What Sankey actually said he did in his reveal video was that he did each trick, say 4 times, 3 known times and once in a new, unique way.
If there’s no rule against it, it’s fair game. It is easy to add a rule and they didn’t. The show is literally called fool us and you can’t be surprised that someone try’s to fool them. You disagree with the method but the rules don’t. It’s smart. Every magic trick is a lie. You are saying “hey, you have to lie in a way that I like.”
I'm glad you included Jay Sankey even though he lost. His entire scheme and story was Bullshit (which is was also great show but the wrong show.)
I'm surprised you didn't mention Garret Thomas' performance. He is an excellent magician and his ring trick was fantastic. I remember a lot of people saying he only won on a wording technicality rather than actually fooling Penn and Teller. I'm pretty sure the performance is still available to watch on RUclips. What do you think?
I considered it when researching as yes, it was an odd 'fool' but decided to focus on other stories. Plenty for a part 2 though...
If you listen to Penn's condition of fooling them while explaining how its done in Garret's performance, Garret didn't lie at at all, he fooled them fair and square.
I never really understood why that one was so controversial. He sells the trick, so the method is readily available, and Penn used extremely precise wording. They weren't technically wrong, they were completely wrong!
About the switch Brynolf & Ljung did: they weren't performing for regular schmucks like me, they were performing for top notch magicians, so they had to adapt their misdirection accordingly. I don't think it's cheating or not believing in their effect as you put it, just another level of misdirection that Penn and Teller fell for.
Beautiful content!
Would love to see top five performance who actually fooled P&T!
If Nick Einhorn did an instant stooge, there should not be a controversy, Dani Daortiz did the same thing on All hands off routine recently.
I agree, it shouldn't be controversial, nor does it break the rules. Some think it does, though
I don't know the rules, are instant stooge not allowed? I am pretty sure many magician have used it on Fool us. Especially with Allyson.
Dani did not have any stooges. All 4 of the people around the table were not in on the trick. Dani actually fooled them all. Penn gave Dani the highest compliment saying that Dani is better the Juan his teacher. Juan is a well respected magician and a true master at his art. Dani fooled everyone of them hands down. Ive had the privilege to talk to Dani amd be in one of his lectures and he is truly a master at his craft. Sorry my friend but I'm gonna have to disagree with you.
@@miked4152 Well that makes the trick all the more impressive to me, my thought was he actually made Allison force a card some way. If not, its even better!!
@@EKLAVYAVEER of course he made her force a card. That doesn't mean she was a stooge or in on it. He was in control the whole time. From the beginning to the end. He knew he could get one over on Alison because she is not a magician. The outcome could have been different if it was Teller that he forced the card but he didn't he did it to Alison
Love the breakdown, would've loved a bit more footage of the acts in question, other than that solid content.
Thanks
Included as much as I could without upsetting 'the copyright Gods'!
I remember most of them, but n2 specially. I bet that when they do this trick for general audiences they don't do the fake switch, so I think it's fair they are in this list, and I felt bad for P&T.
I think adding an extra movement to throw the trick off is called manipulation. Not said bad way. Just a word describing it
Fake switches shouldn’t be hated on. That’s fooling people as it is. Then it’s also similar to disappearing tricks as a coin doesn’t disappear, it’s all to do with angles and deceiving someone’s eyes
Can you elaborate on the Einhorn trick with the different plates of food? I remember this one, but did not understand it had any controversy.
The number 3, Nick Inhorne act seems to almost been scrubbed from the internet
Also, about the whole "no stooges etc." thing -- yes, Penn&Teller love a good show, but at the end of the day this is about "magic", and I just don't see stooges as "magic".
And yeah, I think that "red herrings", like showing a fake switch, should not be allowed. Unless the rules are also changed so that any method that can do the trick and matches exactly what was seen counts as "not fooled", but that might cause problems with stuff like "did you use black magic" where it might not be immediately obvious whether black magic could even do an effect.
However, as a closing thing -- I'm not an expert on the show, but I believe there might be a different possible controversy with Penn&Teller breaking the rules(?). And that's the Stanley Zhou performance, where they basically kind of surprise-attacked him so he'd hand them the prop he was using... it didn't help them for some reason and it was still a fool, but it felt very different from other performances where the magician himself ended his performance with something like "you can keep the cards if you want to", as well as situations where Penn basically asked to examine a prop AFTER their discussion, and he'd basically use it confirm that he was right, or outright declare that he was wrong and they were fooled.
So I'm not apart of the magic community but love watching and learning how talented magicians secretly are. I thought for sure the most controversial fool us would go to Jean-Pierre Parent, as he basically completely cheated the rules. I couldn't find it now but there was an interview somewhere with the producer saying it was his fault P&T got fooled as he allowed Alyson to practice the trick back stage before the performance. If I remember correctly producer said JP was a nervous wreck, producer then decided to calm him he would make this exception to allow Alyson to practice the trick. Which then allowed JP to show her what she had to do to make the trick work, this also is why Alyson is so lively during the routine as she knew the trick. P&T knowing a random spectator would not have been able to pull it off without being in on the trick, had no idea how he could have done it any other way.
The show is called "fool us" . Red herrings are accomplishing exactly that. If (after 9 seasons...) they wouldn't have wanted red herrings to be a part of the methods used ,they would have stipulated it in the rules. End of story.
The way you introduce the show like it's an ancient piece of TV history, when it's actually a pretty recent show, is hilarious.
Do I? Ha, pretty sure I introduced the show fairly normally, but sure
@@CavanBooth1 Imagine a TV show that's just starting now. Now imagine you in 10 years time (it won't feel like much time at all). Then imagine someone on RUclips talking about that 2022 TV show being 'longest running', and how this person used to watch it when they got home from school and it being one of their earliest memories. Trust me, you'll find it funny.
Yeah... I was thinking of Sankey all along. I thought you're gonna mention him at *this* number every time. Wonderful guy, but he did it to himself.
Do illusionists have a Code of Ethics? Maybe for you, Cavan, those magicians did not do right. But the purpose of the show is not "to please Cavan", but to fool Penn and Teller. Did they?
If you know me, you know I love unorthodox methods. Camera tricks, stooges... all fair game. I make it very clear I'm only talking about the rules and confines of this show, purely because it interests me!
Exactly!
I am not saying that I agree or disagree on "Number 2", but as far as I know, misdirection is a common concept in their kind of art to fool someone.
The number 1 guy could of gotten the trophy but he decided not to and fooled them secretly
I agree with the number one but for a different reason. You go on Fool Us to fool them ON THE SHOW and making them accept that on the show. Going on RUclips AFTER saying "I fooled them secretly" , it's acting like a 10 years-old boy AND it's clickbait. Jay Sankey is a really good and (somewhat creative magician), but he has a lot of controversy surrounding him ( that Fool US thing, some of his protects that are really bad ( * cough * gemini pouch *cough*) , his contract with Penguin Magic, etc.).
Not really good marketing moves
What you have to give Sankey is that he said he didn't fool them out of respect for them.
So in a kind of way, he felt a bit of "shame" or "guilt" for using this moves without using them I guess.
As a complete layperson who can almost never see how tricks are done, I've been wondering if Penn & Teller give an automatic Fooler to any teen or younger magicians who show good form and effort in their performance. Some are obviously incredible, but just on the balance of statistics: I don't think I've ever seen a minor on the show who didn't get a trophy. I don't see this a being particularly disingenuous... It's magic, it's Penn & Teller, it'd be a great way to support young upcoming magicians. I wouldn't mind in the least if it was true. But I wouldn't even know where to begin to prove it, or if I would even want to.
Alternately, though, maybe you have to be really really good before P&T will let you on their show if you're under 21. That could be what causes the high percentage.
Number 2 are some of the most famous magicians here in Sweden. They even had their own street magic tv show
Despite the controversy, their act was insanely good 🔥
@@CavanBooth1 yeah
I thought maybe Ben Earl would’ve made the list. He was performing his real ace, cutting routine, and it seems like he was awarded a Fuller, based on semantics. P & T referenced “ false cuts and shuffles “, when it was, in fact, real cuts and shuffles, with slug controls, etc etc. Technically, they weren’t false, but the way they were describing his method. It seemed like they weren’t really fooled 🤷♂️
I think the most impressive part of his routine, is that he spoke after the fact, about having P&T provide a deck. Turned out, Teller had been sitting on it throughout the show, swamp butting it, and he said the condition of the cards were terrible. He said he had to change up some of the techniques, based on how sticky they were, but he still managed to kill it
Dude Nick Einhorn's routine is the great. It's why I got hooked on the show.
What did number 3 do. I'm learning magic now but I don't know much mentalism. Did he just tell them what to say? That seems way too risky so it must be something else. Can you message me somehow?
The cards that he gave the participants to read would've instructed them to fill in the information themselves rather than the info actually being written on them. I don't even think it's all that risky, I'd guess the vast majority of people would play along rather than be asses and ruin it.
I can see both sides of the coin for sure. I will say.. not that it will make a difference to some people, but there’s some questionable things happening on the production side too.
All I’m saying is that at the end of the day it’s a TV show first and a magic show second. Based on things I know about the show, I personally don’t see an issue with what these folks did .
We saw you do it.. no, you THOUGHT you saw us do it..
I think Penn & Teller shouldn't be limited to one guess, it makes red herrings too effective.
Number 5 could be down to slightly sloppy stage management, not paying attention to an assistant crossing in front of a performer because it didn't matter to the method. Number 2, blatant, but as a non-magician I didn't know if that was bad or just playing the game well. There's no reason they couldn't have guessed the real method, IF they noticed it. Which they didn't. So likely this would have fooled them anyway...?
The rules are ambiguous enough that it really makes it possible to play them. They made the rules up, they get to deal.
I think Jibrizy also deserves a mention. He pretend to be doing a "move" which he wasn't actually doing.
Done a whole other video about that! ruclips.net/video/x1Ra-6ZUaSw/видео.html
i read that Penn discussed that Jay Sankey controversy on his podcast but the url on podcast site is broken and there is no that episode in Spotify. Maybe someone have it? it's called Episode 198 - Love You or Hate You, We Can't Remember or Pronounce Your Name
should put a link to the videos so we can see the trick
Done! In the description!
The only possibility I can think of that you mean with Nick is that he had an "insert your name here" fill in the blank and the rest was fine. Penn qualified his statement by saying "not knowing their names" so Nick could have stepped up and confessed. However, this would have ruined the trick completely. I wonder about a few of these types of outcomes that I've watched if they decide to sacrifice the win in the name of saving a magician's trick. That said, I'm not sure that was how it was done and I have my own theory. But if it was, it was with P&T's blessing, so...yay.
Honestly ive never liked Brynolf and Ljung (pronounced "briy-nolf" and "yung") because of this, also theyre a household name in sweden for doing extremely basic magic that is only ever impressive to "muggles" who has never seen more advanced magic in their life, their fool us performance is no joke one of the more advanced tricks theyve done
The one with all those people on stage,it isn't his fault Penn misspoke. He didn't break any rules. I was sure he was going to have that guy who was moving his ring from one finger to another without taking the ring off on this list. He lied to them,blatantly. Penn asked him if his ring was gimmicked and he said no. Originally Penn asked him if it was gimmicked a certain way and that way it wasn't. I would have had no problem with that. Again,not his fault. But then Penn asked him straight out "You Didn't Gimmick The Ring In Any Way?" He said no,that was a lie. He said it was gimmicked in a certain way on a podcast. He did something with it that it made a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz noise. He lied to them.
Great topic! I generally feel like any misdirection used is fair game, but I also feel like Sankey's was not in the spirit of the show. His appearance [on the show] had nothing to do with wanting to win the trophy, and another less-successful magician would have appreciated that slot more, and could have gotten some exposure. I still love Sankey, and I enjoyed his act...but...yeah.
On an unrelated note, my Camp 52 playing cards arrived today and they're awesome! The stock is great! They feel and handle GREAT! The artwork is perfect! It's a great deck! Love it! I am in the states, and the shipping time was just less than three weeks. Thank you!
I have seen a few act where they mention "possible" red fish up front, is that ok?
This needed more clips from the show so we can actually know what you’re talking about
I used as much as I could without getting copyright strikes
Hi Cavan, do you use a teleprompter? BTW great video 😊
Nope, unscripted
If you didn't at least mention Jay Sankey, I would have been disappointed.
Why is there such a big deal about HOW they were fooled? This is a serious question. Isn't that THE ONE AND ONLY POINT to magic? Think about it: No matter how good you are at ANYthing, there will always be someone who can and will beat you. They got fooled under their own rules. Bow down.
It's annoying. To be fair they agreed to have them on and someone on the show knew what they were doing.
Some things that should be more controvesial though is, how they seem to be willingly fooled by some magicians that they have respect for. Example Chris Capehart.
I'm surprised you didn't bring up Ben Earl and the "false" shuffle debate.
Does "no stooges" also mean "no instant stooges"? Is that what you're hinting at there?
Speaking about red herrings i gotta ask what are your thoughts about Mathieu Bich's trick? Was it red herring or not? This gotta be one of my favourite tricks in the entire show's history...
I remember number 2 annoyed me like crazy. No issues with number 3, he had balls of steel! Number 1 is fine. He obviously did it for the luls. He didn't try to get a trophy out of it.
I saw both vids on Jay Sankey and thought yeah, he'll be featuring on this.
One that always bothered me, even though I infinitely respect him, was the David Roth performance. RIP to David but in the spirit of the show being fair, I believe (I can't seem to find the video on YT right now so correct me if anyone else remembers it) he was doing his Hanging Coins routine. You mean to tell me, especially Teller of all people, didn't know this routine? I'm willing to bet anything that he not only owns Expert Coin Magic but has studied in indepth, a classic in magic and the routine is considered fairly basic now. I believe they let him win because of who he is. Which is unfortunate because some other legendary magicians have performed, even classics, and would add a twist specifically to fool them. Though I think Gertner doing his Cups and Balls is guilty of this but his extra ending in Unshuffled was an example of the latter.
Cavan, you seem to forgot this guy named "Kolos", who fooled Penn and teller with his card trick. Also quite dissapointed with Penn and teller not noticing the signed card, totally a different signed card. This guy seems to be lucky enough.
Nice. I was sure that one of them would've been the guy with the finger-ring who was passing it through solid objects, including Teller's fingers. He claimed the ring was gimmicked. What?
Well, the producer knows about trick and method in advance! So there is really no good chance for cheaters. It is always up to the producer to come up with that performance or not
Sankey was neither the first nor last to put some magician herrings in his show, I think he did this to snarkily point out the rules have issues.
As for why he didn’t just do an original trick: This is just speculation. Sankey sells tricks. P&T make money exposing and undermining tricks. Sankey might have a bone to pick with them and this is how he did did that. So when he’s invited on the show, rather than reveal one of his original tricks to the judging panel, he patronizes P&T with re-engineered staples to one up P&T. Nobody said geniuses are kindly people!
I watched 2 tricks of Axel Adler on P&T and both were amazing, realy magical (to me at least).
But then the Penn code lang part was cut.
So I started to wonder if there was anything weird there or simply Axel didn't want to give the audience any hints that we might find in Penn's code lang.
If it was on the magician's own YT channel, its likely they cut P&T's guess just to avoid people working it out
P&T know how every trick is done, just not always which method was used. The only way to win is to have them guess the wrong one.
Not true, they genuinely had no idea how John Archer's trick worked (the first fooler).
@@AractusPuphlicus Thanks, I will have to check that one out again.
The funny thing is sometimes people do the opposite and break the premise of the show, correctly? Like when Daniel Madison went on and flashed everything he did to Penn and Teller so he wouldn't fool them but they would say specifically that he was better at the tech he was using than anyone else.
Such a good point!
A bit of the same idea was when Shawn Farquhar fooled P&T the second time. But that turned out to be a joke. The audience laughed watching the foolish pranky act. Which in the end turned out to be magical after all. He fooled them. But I bet P&T have later figured it out. Because I have.