Don’t run if you’re not being chased.

You waste a lot of energy and time by trying to prove everything wrong. Most people in general don't care.

I think the trick to this (pun intended) achieving these things without explicitly stating them.

Imagine for example, instead of stating that 'this is a totally normal deck', you let the spectator handle a normal deck and ring one in without them knowing. It's like showing your hands empty instead of stating them as such.

For my money, John bannon is really good at these subtleties.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I think people who do card manipulation, a zillion false cuts and shuffles, spreads, flips and flops and general showing off while doing a "trick" are ruining their mystique somewhat. While people might walk away impressed, what they're going to say and remember is, "That guy was really good with a deck of cards." Whereas a trick done where they didn't see anything happen, like a DL or a TC but the magic still happens... they're walking away going, "I have NO clue how he did that. THAT was magic."

Most of the time I agree to not close any doors. However, it depends on your character. Let’s say you bring out a deck and present it as “a magician at a magic shop gave this to me, and I have no idea how it works.” Then you also act fooled when the magic happens because thats your shtick….closing doors becomes part of your bewilderment. And I’ve seen a lot of magic presented that way too. Happening to the performer not by the performer.

I think it’s about knowing your audience.

Some people aren’t happy with magic tricks unless they are “fooled” and can’t figure out how it’s done. Those types of people want/need this because you have to show them that it’s not something they know.

Other people probably won’t care because they know it’s scripted and as long as you perform well, it’s fine.

And then finally some people are going to be annoyed because you keep focusing on what it isn’t.

So the closing door thing is basically what Juan Tamariz outlines in The Magic Way. Juan's goal was to cause the spectator to give up trying to find the solution of an effect and just let the magic experience take over. Juan describes his method of false solutions where the magician comes up with potential methods for how an effect could be done or how a spectator may think it is done and proceeds to disprove each of those methods during the course of an effect.

I personally am a fan of Gabi Pareras and his thinking on this. And in my understanding of Gabi's work, Gabi agreed with Juan that you want the spectator to not attempt to find a solution and just experience the magic but felt that Juan didn't go far enough. Gabi didn't even want the spectator to begin to want to try and dismantle the effect and should just experience the magic from the start.

Ascanio was a little better he felt through his theories of concealment, the first time a spectator may sense or seek trickery would be when the effect/climax occurs, ie "Oh the coin vanished, he must have done something tricky, its in his other hand, or it must have gone up his sleeve, etc"

Again Gabi felt Ascanio fell short and he believed that when the effect is over the spectator should have sensed nothing and therefore have no desire to seek out a method.

Gabi felt that this way of presenting magic was too focused on the method with too much emphasis on proving that "magic" has occurred and that there was no natural cause for it (it couldn't have been done this way, or that way, or this other way so it must be magic...).

Gabi wanted to put the focus on the external reality of the effect, the effect from the spectator's point of view; to show or demonstrate magic instead of having to prove that it occurred.

The thought is that this way of presenting magic can also help to ease the spectators' initial instinct to believe that "the magic man is just trying to fool me, I need to watch closely and figure out how its done" because the magician isn't insulting their intelligence by trying to make them believe it has to be real because there is no other way something could have happened. He just gets swept up in what the magician wants to show to him, maybe its something the magician doesn't even understand, or something like "what would it look like if we lived in a different reality than our own? We dont obviously, but what if...?"

As others have already said, the natural handling of the cards, spreading a deck on the table to show its shuffled, well covered sleights, etc will provide the "proof" without outright saying it. Magicians are always wanting the spectator to not think about it being just a trick so why would we spend all this time outright talking about the trick from a method stand point. As the magician, Gabi didnt want to talk about the possible methods. That's not want he was interested in talking about or showing. He just wanted to demonstrate the magic or some phenomena.

This is just my opinion and I definitely think there is a balance to be had between Juan's, Ascanio’s, and Gabi's theories. I am a huge fan of all three. But I really like Gabi's approach and thinking on it.

It's okay to run before you're being chased if you know you're going to be chased later and you can guess what direction you'll be chased.

Okay okay it's a bad metaphor if you try to extend it that much. What I'm trying to say is: once the audience sees what the trick is, some of them will try to come up with explanations. A lot of those first thoughts they have will be the same. If you can do enough to rule out those top two or three objections in advance, you'll at least leave the door open to true mystification. Anything beyond that could become tedious.

For a card trick, letting a participant freely shuffle is often enough to convince everyone there are no gimmicks or set-ups just by itself. Not looking at or seemingly handling the cards while the selection procedure is happening is usually enough to convince everyone the card is lost to you.

The amount of extra fairness to include depends on the setting and the audience. For a parlor show, you'll want to keep things moving along or you'll lose attention. For a small group close-up interaction, you can be a lot more fair and deliberate because the audience is engaged just by being active participants.

Letting them shuffle the cards is enough to establish the deck is normal, without saying it. Or a casual false shuffle and showing the faces.

You could choose to do a trick using a presentation about how fair the conditions are, or a phase in a trick, but I wouldn't overdo it.

I always try to perform like I'm a dummy with a deck. The more precise you are about everything the more fishy it seems. No one is thinking like a magician.

I don't like doing this. I think it's much better to convince than to state. Don't tell them you're not using a marked deck. Look away and stand back so that you can't read the card backs of you don't need to. Don't tell them all the cards are different. Just spread the deck under the veil of some patter and use it as a conversation piece but you incidentally show the cards.

This is so much better because for starters you don't come off as defensive. Secondly you don't give away methods you might want to use later for different tricks.

If a laymen sees a magician explain "look all the cards are different, I'm not faking you out with a deck that's all 3 of clubs" they are going to think "oh that's so clever, you could do a trock with a deck that's all the same!" And then if you or another magician does that later they know about it.

This feels like someone trying to fool a magician. This strategy can work if you have a compelling presentation, but your question is based in a vacuum that doesn’t have the trick. Just the procedure.

You are right that an effect that is only based on displaying conditions is boring, but I think you get it wrong with the description and misunderstood what people mean when they say “closing doors”. Rather than drawing attention to everything, you can entertain while shuffling and choose which aspects to draw attention to (that should be emphasising fairness rather than pointing out something spectators can see on their own). That way you still perform an entertaining effect that closes all the doors but without rubbing it in anyone’s face

In the beginning, I go right into the story, no talk of cheating. I do like closing doors quickly at the end before the reveal, reminding them that everybody shuffled, they cut, they chose the card, “do you remember your card?”, “what number did you pick?”, whatever is appropriate. It keeps them involved, reminds them what you just did, and builds some suspense.

It depends on the trick, the moment, and the audience, but what you’re circling is usually called over-proving: when the performer keeps closing doors long after the audience has emotionally accepted the premise, the tone shifts from wonder to cross-examination. Each extra condition may be logically sound, yet theatrically it can feel like you’re arguing a case rather than telling a story, and laypeople rarely need—or want—the full legal brief.

Strong magic relies on assumed fairness, not exhaustively demonstrated fairness; once spectators believe the conditions are reasonable, piling on proofs often signals insecurity and invites adversarial thinking. There are times when systematic door-closing is effective—high-stakes demonstrations, puzzle-framed effects, or performances for magicians—but for most audiences the goal isn’t to leave them with only one possible explanation, it’s to leave them comfortable not needing one at all.

When the effect is clear and the experience engaging, fewer doors closed often feel more impossible, not less.

I never say this is a regular deck. That automatically makes people suspicious. Idosome of the other things on the list depending on the trick. Signing a card, letting the spectator replace the card in the deck, letting someone cut the cards, etc. Those are just natural, in my opinion. I've never had anyone say anabout them. Only the first two on the list seem problematic to me. If the trick needs or uses any of the others, I see no problem.

Yes, you only have to work on a conditions that make the trick strong. It does make sense to sign the card in ambitious card for instance. Otherwise, proving everything to be legit becomes distraction.

What you described goes a bit over the top. Don’t waste time talking about it. Anyone who is looking for those things can spot the proof you didn’t use them if you make it evident.

Saying your deck is normal just makes people think it isn’t.

When I want to convey how totally impossible a trick is, I will do a whole routine of that one trick. I’ll do it once with one method, show them “how it’s done”, do it again but now do something to show I can’t be using that method, explain the new method, and finally do it a third time showing neither of those methods could have been used.

For the right trick, I’ll go beyond 3, but only if I have a kicker for the ending, some additional impossibility that compounds their shock. Often something I set up while “explaining” the previous iterations.

It's best to use just one. Give the flavor of transparency and fairness without actually going through all the possibilities. And it's fun if the one you're using is actually part of the trick. Like, spread the cards face-up to show they're shuffled, when you're really just finding your location in a memorized deck that's been cut.