V2 by manos kartsakis

V• Vi veri veniversum vivus vici

Copyright 2016 by Michael Murray
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form
without written permission from the author.
For television performance rights and further information, please contact -
info@mindfx.co.uk

“I would like to dedicate this book to my lovely wife Manuela
and our little Elena. Your love and support remind me that
nothing is impossible. Thank you for making me want to be
the best version of myself.”
- Manos

• About the Author - (Page 6)
• History and Credits - (Page 8)
• Introduction - (Page 9)
• Veritas - (Page 11)
• Vox - (Page 20)
• Vox 2.0 - (Page 25)
• Verbalist - (Page 30)
• Verbalist 2.0 - (Page 41)
• Vice Versa - (Page 51)
• Velvet - (Page 67)
• Thanks & Praise - (Page 76)
• Epilogue - (Page 77)
• Bonus Thoughts - (Page 79)
CONTENTS

V
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Unlike other magicians who started doing magic when they were 6 or 7 years
old, I actually started much later than that. I was already a teenager when the
magic bug bit me, but since then, I have been doing my best to make up for the
lost time.
Close up magic attracted me first. I started practicing sleight of hand with
cards, coins etc. spending hours each day studying Daryl’s Encyclopedia of
Card Sleights and Michael Ammar’s Easy to Master series.
I have to admit that in the beginning I wasn’t interested in mentalism. I believe
this was because I am genuinely a very skeptical person, and at that age, I
thought that pretending to be a psychic (that’s what I thought of mentalism
back then) didn’t suit my character.
The first mentalism performance that grabbed my attention was by Lee Earle.
Unlike what I had seen before, his routine had a more psychological and
realistic aspect in its presentation.
It was then that my interest in mentalism began. I studied as much as I could
from various sources (Corinda, Bob Cassidy, Max Maven, Richard Osterlind to
name but a few) but still exclusively performed close up magic and practiced
sleight of hand.
I only saw mentalism from a different perspective when Derren Brown hit the
magic scene, he was unlike anyone I had seen before. Although the effects he
performed were genuinely impressive, I was more amazed and fascinated by
the way he presented them. Instead of just revealing a thought, this performer
actually based the whole presentation around the mind reading “process”.
I have to admit that from all my inspirations and influences in magic, Derren
has to be the biggest and most important. The main reason is that after seeing
Derren perform, I realized that it is possible for someone who is as skeptical as
I am to perform mentalism.
I am not saying that I present all my effects the same way as Derren, nor that I
believe that this is the way all mentalism should be performed. I am just saying

By Manos Kartsakis
that this is what suits me personally. It also allows me to better express myself
through my presentations.
Fast forward 15 years and here we are. I am particularly happy that in this, my
first publication for the magic community, there is a routine inspired by Derren
himself.
I sincerely hope that you have fun playing with these ideas!
Best Wishes, Manos Kartsakis - 10th January 2016

V
HISTORY & CREDITS:
Logic puzzles involving liars and truth-tellers date back almost 2500 years,
but the first to apply such an idea to a mentalism effect was probably Jack
Vosburgh in “The Awful Truth,” in his 1941 booklet More Than a Trick, which
begat Tommy Dowd’s “Liars!” in The Phoenix #90, August 1945.
That said, the first approach to be based purely on a verbal construction was by
Gerald Kosky in “To Tell The Truth” in Apocalypse, June 1978.
Special thanks must go to Max Maven for the credits listed above.
More recently there has been a revival of interest in routines of this nature. The
most noteworthy of these recent contributions include -
• Manoeda - by Ever Elizalde
• Rock, Paper, Lies - by Jay Di Biase
• Tequila Hustler - by Mark Elsdon
Note: Mark Elsdon and I came up with the same logic puzzle behind Tequila
Hustler independently and since he had already decided to release it when we
chatted I decided not to include it in this booklet.

By Manos Kartsakis
INTRODUCTION:
In this book, you will find a collection of routines that are based on the “which
hand” plot. Some of them are based on the liar/truth teller premise and some
of them are not. Many of these routines utilise what I call the “V” principle.
The “V” principle, allows the performer to know exactly what the spectator will
end up doing, whether he decides to lie or tell the truth, or whether he decides
to follow the performer’s instructions or do the opposite. This principle has
been around for many years in logic puzzles and has been used in mentalism
before (see credit section) but, I have never seen a name for it.
I have performed all the routines in this book many times, and have settled on
a few of them that I use all the time. However, I have included all of them here
for two reasons. 
The first one is that some of the routines I do not use anymore are really
good routines and the fact that I do not use them is just a matter of personal
preference. I prefer to use another routine (which is in this book as well) but
you might prefer to choose differently. 
The second reason is that all of the routines that I have come up with have
a direct link with each other and if it wasn’t for those routines that I came
up with first, I would have never conceived their improved (in my opinion)
versions.
Reading through some of these older routines might inspire you to come up
with your own variations like it inspired me. Here is a brief outline of the
routines I use most of the time and the ones I do not use so often anymore:
Verbalist – The first routine of this type I ever came up with and still use to this
day all the time. One of my all time favourites. 
Verbalist 2.0 – The second version of the above routine. I still use both since
they have only minor differences. 
Veritas – I love it, works fine but these days I find myself performing “Velvet”
more often than this one.

V
Vox – I always thought this routine had great potential but was not always easy
for all spectators to follow. I have replaced this with Vox 2.0 which is very easy
for all spectators to follow. 
Vox 2.0 – The improved version of the routine above. I still use this one but not
as often as “Velvet”. 
Velvet – I think this is definitely one of my favourite routines. The reason I
perform it more often than Veritas and Vox 2.0 is because it does not rely on a
liar/truth teller premise, it is extremely simple to follow and you get to reveal
more in the final revelation.
Vice Versa – I still perform this one on stage shows. One of my favourite
routines as well.
Another thing that I would like to add here before we get into the routines is
that in all the routines there is a basic presentation so that you can see exactly
how the logic puzzle which is built into the routine plays out. However, there
are additional ideas about how you can present these routines either on the
“Additional Thoughts” parts of the routines or at the “Bonus Thoughts” at the
end of the book. Please don’t let these fly under your radar because they will
allow you to reveal thought of words, PIN codes etc. besides which hand an
object is hidden in.
Thank you all for supporting my work. It really means a lot to me. I am
currently working on my next book. If you are interested in having a sneak
peek on what I am working on drop me an email to -
manos.mentalism@gmail.com with the title “free routine” and I will send
you a routine from my new book absolutely for free as a “Thank you” for your
interest in my work.”
I sincerely hope you enjoy what you find in these pages.
Manos Kartsakis - 14th May 2017

By Manos Kartsakis
VERITAS
EFFECT:
The performer hands the spectator a small object. Whilst placing their hands
behind their back, the spectator is instructed to hide the object in either hand.
Despite being able to lie or tell the truth to any question, the mentalist is able to
discern the location of the object with 100% accuracy.
PERFORMANCE:
“I would like to play a simple game with you that I came across a few years
back. Although its exact origins have been obscured by history, I do know that
it has roots in the world of gambling.
Two people are required to play, one player hides a banknote behind their
back, the other person has to guess in which hand they have placed it. If they
guess correctly they get to keep it if they fail, then they must hand over one of
their bills of equal value.
Now, at a first glance, this would appear to be a simple 50-50 guessing game,
however, what makes this interesting is that the finder is only allowed to ask
a single question, and the keeper can either lie or tell the truth in their answer.
As you can probably tell, the better you are at reading someone and being able
to spot a lie, the greater the chance you have of winning.
I would like to play my version of this game with you, but don’t worry, you
won’t be asked to risk any of your money, instead, we will play with some of
mine.”
The performer gives a folded banknote to the spectator who is then instructed
to place both of his hands behind his back.
“Ok, now I want you first, to decide in which hand you will hide the bill. You
can switch it around a couple of times if you wish, until you feel that it is in
the hand that feels right to you.
Done? Ok, now I want you to make another decision, but please say nothing

V
out loud. In this game, you can either decide to play the role of the truth teller
and concentrate on the hand that contains the bill, or if you want to make it
more challenging for me, you can play the role of a liar and concentrate on
the hand that is empty.
Please bear in mind that if you decide to play the role of the liar this does not
tell me anything negative about you as a person, it will just serve the purpose
of this game. Have you made your decision? Good.
So at this point, the bill is in one of your hands, and you are also
concentrating on one of your hands; either the hand that has the bill if you
have decided to play the role of the truth teller, or the empty hand if you have
decided to play the role of a liar.
You will have to agree that it is impossible for me to know which hand holds
the banknote, and which role you have decided to play.
Ok, good. I would like you to focus your full attention on whichever hand
that you have decided to concentrate upon. Please ignore the other hand
completely. Good, I can see that you are doing a great job.
In a moment I am going to ask you to bring forward either of your hands and
place it on my palm. It doesn’t have to be the hand you are concentrating on,
but please make sure to keep it closed so that it would be impossible for me
to see if it’s holding anything. You can keep the other hand behind your back.
Take your time, think carefully and do this when you are ready.”
At this point, the performer extends his hand forward in front of the spectator
and waits for the spectator to place either hand upon his open palm. When the
spectator does so, the performer continues…
“You are doing a great job so far, but I believe that I have you figured out, I
am going to ask you a single question to confirm my thoughts.
“In a moment I will be asking you if this is the hand you are concentrating
on. Before you answer, remember that you can either answer truthfully if you
have decided to be the truth teller, or you can lie if of course, you have decided
to play the role of the liar.”

By Manos Kartsakis
“Now that you know the question, and have had time to think about it, please
answer in character… Is this the hand you are concentrating on?”
For the sake of this example, we will assume that the answer is “Yes” and
that the spectator has secretly decided to play the role of the truth teller. The
performer would continue as follows…
“Ok, let’s take a few moments to think about this, you could have placed the
bill in any hand, and even changed your mind a few times along the way,
you could have chosen to lie or tell the truth, and to cap it all, you could have
placed either hand on my palm.
I am sure that you will agree, that even if I knew which hand you were
concentrating on, I still couldn’t possibly know whether or not it contains my
money. (The spectator agrees)
However, at this point, I can tell you two things. I know that you are probably
a terrible liar, and that’s why you usually decide to tell the truth. Also,
with that in mind, I am absolutely certain that my banknote is in this hand
(pointing to the hand that rests upon your palm), the hand behind your back
is empty.”
The spectator confirms that everything the performer has said is true, and
opens up his hand to reveal the hidden bill.
THE METHOD:
Before we go into the method of how this effect works let’s take a step back for
a moment, to examine how fair this is from the spectator’s point of view.
To begin with, the spectator can choose to place the bill in either hand and is
even offered the opportunity to change his mind a few times. He can choose to
play either role merely by thinking about it, he can place either hand on the
performer’s palm, and when asked a question, he could either be lying or
telling the truth. Yet, despite this, the performer is able to know with 100%
certainty where the money is hidden.

V
One of my primary goals when I created this effect, was to make it impossible
for anyone to deconstruct whilst keeping it as simple and fair as possible. After
having performed this for many lay people, and magicians alike, I can say that
those goals have been sufficiently satisfied.
I would like to assume that at this point, you, the reader haven’t yet been able to
figure out the method, which I assure you, is as simple as it is deceptive.
Before I reveal the method I want you to take a moment to imagine the
following -
Imagine that you are performing this effect and you are 100% certain that the
spectator is telling the truth. In this instance, it would be very easy to locate the
banknote.
Let’s assume you ask them “Is the bill in this hand?” If they respond with a
“Yes”, then you know that the bill is in that hand, if they respond with a “No”,
then you know that the hand is empty, and so it must be hidden in the other
hand.
With that in mind, here comes the method. All you need to do to accomplish
this effect is to imagine in your mind that the spectator is always telling the
truth. It is as simple as that!
Note: Please remember, you are NOT asking where the banknote is, you
are simply asking if the hand upon your palm is the one that they are
concentrating on.
ANALYSIS OF THE METHOD:
The modus operandi of this effect is a logic puzzle which forces the spectator to
give exactly the same answer regardless of which role they have decided to play.
You are simply putting the spectator into a position where a liar would respond
in exactly the same way as someone who is telling the truth.
To help clarify this, I have detailed each of the possible scenarios that could
take place, along with each of the possible outcomes. If you examine this

By Manos Kartsakis
closely you will soon understand how this process works.
Note: If you are not interested in analyzing it further you are good to go, just by
knowing that all you have to do, is always consider whatever the spectator says
to be the truth.
Scenario 1 –
The spectator is a truth teller (and is, therefore, concentrating on the hand
which contains the banknote). They present you with the hand which contains
the money.
Question: “Is this the hand you were concentrating on?”
Answer: “Yes” (In this instance they are answering honestly).
Result: Since you will always believe that the spectator is telling the truth, you
now know that the hand which the spectator has presented is the one which
holds the money.
Scenario 2 –
The spectator is a liar (and is, therefore, concentrating on the empty hand).
They present you with the hand that contains the money.
Question: “Is this the hand you were concentrating on?”
Answer: The truthful answer is “No”, but since the spectator is a liar, they must
answer this question with a “Yes”.
Result: Since you will always believe that the spectator is telling the truth, you
now know that the hand which the spectator has presented is the one which
holds the money.
Note: Even though it looks slightly complicated when written down, this effect
was designed with the purpose of making it simple for the spectator to follow
should he choose to play the role of a liar.
Scenario 3 – The spectator is a truth teller (and is, therefore, concentrating on
the hand that contains the banknote). They present you with the empty hand
(the bill is in the hand behind their back).
Question: “Is this the hand you are concentrating on?”
Answer: “No” (In this instance they are answering honestly).

V
Result: Since you will always believe that the spectator is telling the truth you
now know that this hand is empty and that the money is hidden behind their
back.
Scenario 4 –
The spectator is a liar (and is, therefore, concentrating on the empty hand).
They present you with the empty hand.
Question: “Is this the hand you are concentrating on?”
Answer: The truthful answer is “Yes”, but since the spectator is a liar, they
must answer this question with a “No”.
Result: Since you will always believe that the spectator is telling the truth you
now know that this hand is empty and that the money is hidden behind their
back.
If you study the above, you will realise that these are the only four
combinations that you could possibly encounter. Hopefully, this breakdown
will help to clarify how this all pieces together.
REFINING DETAILS:
Now that you are familiar with the method, let’s take a closer look at some of
the finer details that help to make this effect both easy to follow, and yet highly
deceptive too.
At the beginning of the effect, it must be crystal clear to the spectator that
if they decide to be a truth teller they MUST concentrate on the hand that
contains the object, and if they decide to play the role of the liar, they MUST
concentrate on the empty hand.
The patter described earlier justifies this procedure perfectly. The next thing to
make sure of is that the spectator is genuinely concentrating on one hand, and
one hand only.
It is important for the spectator to consider this hand as “the hand he is
concentrating on”, as this will later make it far easier for him to answer the final
question.

By Manos Kartsakis
It is also worth reminding the spectator to keep his hand tightly closed so that
you aren’t somehow able to peek inside.
Perhaps the most important thing of all is to remember the following. When
the spectator places their hand upon your palm you should always suggest:
“In a moment I will be asking you if this is the hand you are concentrating
on. Before you answer, remember that you can either answer truthfully if you
have decided to be the truth teller, or you can lie if of course you have decided
to play the role of the liar. Now that you know the question, and have had
time to think about it, please answer in character… Is this the hand you are
concentrating on?”
Each of these words will help to ensure that your spectator understands what is
expected of them.
By suggesting “In a moment”, the spectator is not rushed for an answer, and is
instead, allowed time to think about how they will do this.
The line ”If you decided ” helps the spectator to not only remember their
freedom of choice but also makes it clear that they can only lie if they decided
upon that role earlier.
Since you do not want a truth teller to think that they are free to lie at
this point if they wish to, you will also gently remind them to “answer in
character” before the question is asked.
At this point, the spectator should have been given enough time to process the
relevant answer in their mind and will answer the question correctly according
to their chosen role.
Of course, all the performer has to do now, is listen to how the spectator
answers, taking it for granted that they are telling the truth. So, if the spectator
answers “Yes” (that this is the hand they were concentrating on) then that is
where the object is hiding, and if of course he answers “No”, (that is NOT the
hand they were concentrating on) then, of course, that hand is empty, and the
object is hidden in the hand behind their back.

V
THE REVELATION:
Once you have discerned where the object is located, it’s time to reveal this
information. Before you do this, it is always a good idea to take credit for
determining the spectator’s chosen role (liar or truth teller) even though this
information is never known.
We can, however, create this illusion using the following script:
“At this point, I can tell you two things. I know that you are probably a
terrible liar, and that’s why you usually decide to tell the truth. Also, with that
in mind, I am absolutely certain that …(continue with revealing which hand
the hidden object is in)”.
Note: Credit for the above belongs to Mark Elsdon who uses this within his
“Tequila Hustler” routine.
The above script can of course be interpreted in one of two different ways,
depending upon which role the spectator is playing. If the spectator is playing
the role of a liar, they will believe that you are telling them how obvious the lie
was. On the other hand, if the spectator decided to play the role of the truth
teller, it will appear that you have correctly assumed that they are telling the
truth because they are probably such a poor liar.
The words “probably” and “usually” help to create this illusion through
implication alone. Their subtle use is what makes this statement appear to be
so specific for the individual concerned.
Finally, the certainty in which the performer is able to reveal the location of the
hidden object helps to further confirm the mentalist has correctly identified
the spectator’s role.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
Please remember! In order for the logic puzzle to work, the question you must
ask the spectator is NOT “Is the object/bill in this hand?”. In this case, this
wouldn’t work.
You instead need to have the spectator focus on the correct hand as chosen by

By Manos Kartsakis
them at the very beginning of the routine, (truth teller – hand that contains
the object/liar – empty hand) and in the end ask “Is this the hand you were
concentrating on?”.
Of course, as we have mentioned before, the answer to this question must
always be regarded as the truth in order to locate the hidden object.
CREDITS:
The first time I saw a logic puzzle being used in an effect of this nature was
when I saw Banachek’s Ring of Truth routine from one of his Psi series DVDs.
However, this particular effect was inspired directly from Atlas Brookings’
amazing effect “Imbalance” which I saw in one of his lectures.
After showing a variation of the effect described above to Peter Turner, he
informed me that Mark Elsdon also had similar work on this plot. After
speaking with Mark I found out that the effect I had created was extremely
similar to his (even though both were created independently).
Since then, Mark has published his thoughts within the “Tequila Hustler”
book, and I completely reworked my effect, as well as the methodology which
resulted in the routine that you have just read.
In comparison to the older version, the procedure in this one is very different
and only one question is asked instead of two (the question is also different). I
sincerely hope that you have enjoyed the fruits of this effort.

V
VOX:
EFFECT:
The performer hands the spectator a small object. Whilst placing their hands
behind their back, the spectator is instructed to hide the object in either hand.
This time no questions are asked at all. The spectator is instructed to say
nothing out loud. This is a game that is played only in the spectator’s mind.
With zero questions asked, the mentalist is able to discern the location of the
object with 100% accuracy.
TRY THIS FOR YOURSELF:
To experience this effect first hand, grab any small object that you can hide in
your hand and follow along with the instructions outlined in the performance.
PERFORMANCE:
“I would like to share something with you. Every time I try to read someone
or understand the way they think, people believe that I draw my conclusions
solely from what is said to me. On the contrary, quite the opposite is true.
The majority of communication is made via nonverbal cues, I will give you a
quick example. If you were to lie to me about something, I bet that you could
do it rather convincingly if you really tried.
Some people can tell a lie that is totally indistinguishable from the truth,
this is because people are trained to think like that. We’ve all told little white
lies from time to time, and sometimes it can be quite useful. Not to deceive
someone necessarily, but maybe to get out of an uncomfortable situation
discretely.
However, although we can tell a verbal lie quite convincingly, the one thing
most people haven’t learned is how to control their nonverbal cues as they lie.
These are the things that I look for when I need to discover whether someone
is telling the truth.
In order for me to demonstrate what I am saying, I would like to play a little
game with you. This will be unlike any other game that you might have played

By Manos Kartsakis
before because this one will take place entirely in your mind.
During the game, I would like you to remain completely silent and say
nothing out loud. Is that clear? Good.
I would like you to place any small object behind your back, for now, please
just hold it between your hands. Excellent. Now I would like you to make two
decisions.
The first is, in which hand you would like to hide the object, you can switch it
around a couple of times first if you wish. Once you have decided on a hand,
please keep both fists closed so that even if someone was to stand behind you,
they wouldn’t be able to tell which hand contains the object.
Let me know when you are ready. Good, I would like you now to decide which
role you would like to play in this game. You can either play the role of a truth
teller and concentrate on the hand that contains the object, or you can play
the role of a liar and concentrate on the hand that is empty. You have now
chosen a hand and as a result, have a specific role in mind.
Under these conditions, for me to locate the object I will first have to figure
out which hand you are concentrating on, then will further have to decide
whether or not you may be lying.
I want you now to concentrate your full attention on your chosen hand, you
can completely forget about the other one.
In a moment I am going to ask you to keep the hand you are concentrating on
behind your back and bring the other hand forward, keeping it firmly closed.
If however, you have chosen to play the role of a liar, I would like you to try
and throw me off by bringing the hand that you are concentrating on forward,
instead of keeping it behind your back.
Think carefully about what you are going to do. And now, in keeping with the
character that you chose at the beginning, I would like you to bring one hand
forward and place it on my open palm (the spectator does that).

V
Before we go on, please keep in mind that you could have placed the object in
either hand, and even changed your mind a few times if you had wished. You
could also have chosen to play either role, changing your mind at that last
moment.
Even if I somehow knew that this was the hand you are concentrating on, I
still wouldn’t know if it’s the one that contains the object or not...
At this point, I can tell you two things. I know that you are probably a terrible
liar which is why you usually decide to tell the truth. Also, with that in mind,
I am certain that the object is hidden in the hand behind your back and the
hand upon my palm is empty.”
If you have followed my instructions correctly this should have also worked for
you too!
METHOD:
If you haven’t guessed it already, the method here is once again based upon
a logic puzzle. This one, however, works in a different way. If you correctly
follow the script above, the logic puzzle forces both the truth teller and the liar
to place their empty hand on your palm.
As a result, you will always know that regardless of the spectator’s role (liar or
truth teller) the object will always end up behind their back.
ANALYSIS OF THE METHOD:
For those who are interested in how this works here is a breakdown of the
methodology. Understanding why this works will help prevent you from
making any mistakes during the performance.
In both effects that you have read so far, the truth teller is instructed to
concentrate on the hand that contains the object, whereas the liar is instructed
to concentrate upon the empty hand.
In this effect, if the spectator is the truth teller, he will follow the instruction to
keep the hand he is focusing on (which contains the object) behind his back.

By Manos Kartsakis
If the spectator plays the role of a liar he is instructed to do the opposite, and
bring the hand he is focusing on (the empty hand) forward.
In both instances, the hand that is brought forward will be the empty hand and
the hand that remains behind the spectator’s back will hold the object.
REFINING DETAILS:
Besides the logic puzzle that works invisibly behind this effect, there are also
some finer details that help to make it both deceptive and sure fire.
At the beginning of the effect, it is extremely important for the spectator to
understand which hand he should be focusing on as dictated by their chosen
role.
During the effect, it is very important that the spectator GENUINELY
concentrates exclusively upon one of the hands too. This not only facilitates
the understanding of the instructions, but will also allow your spectator to
make the appropriate actions as requested.
When asking the spectator to bring one hand forward you must be clear and
concise in your instruction.
Notice how the instructions have been separated into two parts.
Part1: “In a moment I am going to ask you to bring one of your hands
forward, if you are a truth teller I would like you to keep the hand that you
are concentrating on behind your back and bring the other hand to the front,
keeping it firmly closed.”
Part 2: “If however, you have chosen to play the role of a liar, I would like you
to try and throw me off by bringing the hand that you are concentrating on
forward instead of keeping it behind your back.”
The instruction for the truth teller is given in the first part which means that
they will ignore the information that follows. The Liar’s instructions are clearly
explained within the second part.
These lines should seemingly be delivered to emphasise the fairness of the

V
situation. Since the focus here is entirely placed upon which hand the
spectator is concentrating on (which you genuinely couldn’t know) the
instruction should seem free and fair and the spectator should not feel as
though they are being manipulated or restricted in any way.
After the instructions have been given, the spectator is allowed a few moments
to consider their actions before bringing a hand forward. As soon as they do
this, you will know that the presented hand will be empty and the object is
being held behind the spectator’s back.
You will notice that prior to the reveal we use a very similar script to the
previous effect. This provides a little time misdirection between the moment
that the information is gathered (where the object is) and the final reveal.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
You may wonder why I designed the effect so that the object ends up behind
the spectator’s back, rather than being held out in front of them.
The reason for this is quite simple, if we performed this the opposite way, then
the liar may feel forced to place the hand with the object on my awaiting open
palm.
This would be a little counter-intuitive for a liar since their natural instinct
would be to hide the object (in order to make it more of a challenge).
In framing the effect as described, this sits equally as well for the liar as it does
for a truth teller. Please study the procedure carefully and have fun with this
effect.
CREDITS:
My inspirations for creating this effect were exactly the same as the first one,
but for this one, however, I would like to thank especially Michael Murray for
insisting on reworking the effect when it was still in development and helping
to turn it into a little gem that I am sure you will enjoy.

By Manos Kartsakis
VOX 2.0:
Note: Please read the original routine before you read this one, as some things
will be clearer if you understand how the original routine works.
EFFECT:
The performer, asks a spectator to hide something in one of their hands. After
the spectator has done that, the performer asks him to either concentrate on
the hand that has the object or the empty hand. No matter which hand the
spectator is concentrating on, the performer is able to tell him exactly where
the object is hidden.
PERFORMANCE:
“Do you have something small like a coin you can hide in your hand? Oh, you
have a 20p? Great, that’s brilliant. Please put both your hands behind your
back and mix it around and when you are ready, hide it in one of your hands.
Please close both your hands in a fist, so even if I were standing behind you I
couldn’t see which hand the coin is in. Have you done that? Great!
This is a simple game. You hid the coin in one of your hands and my goal is
to find that coin. In order for me to do that, I have to get into your head and
understand what you are thinking. Now, we can do this the easy way or the
hard way. I will explain what I mean. The easy way is if you concentrate on
the hand that has the coin. This way, if I manage to discern which hand you
are concentrating on I will instantly know where the coin is. However, if you
choose to do it the hard way, I want you to concentrate on the empty hand
so even if I knew which hand you were focusing on, that wouldn’t tell me
directly if the coin is there. Please don’t tell me which way you want to do it,
just concentrate on that hand. Are you doing that? Great. So, now you are
concentrating on one hand and of course, there is no way for me to know if
you are thinking of the hand that has the coin or the empty hand, right? (The
spectator agrees). Alright, please keep concentrating on that hand. Completely
forget about the other hand. That’s great.
Now, in a moment, I am going to ask you to bring forward the hand you are
concentrating on. However, if you have decided to do it the hard way,

V
bring the other hand forward to make it more challenging for me. Please do
that when you are ready. (The spectator brings one of his hands forward and
the performer looks into the spectator’s eyes, appearing to be a little sceptical). 
Hmmm… Okay… Now, please put this hand behind your back and bring the
other hand forward. (The spectator does, and the performer looks again into
the spectator’s eyes and this time he smiles confidently and says the following): 
Okay, now I am sure. It wasn’t that difficult after all. I am now 100% certain
that this hand is empty and the hand behind your back has the coin.” Of
course, the spectator opens both his hands to confirm that the performer was
indeed correct.
METHOD:
This is 100% the same logic puzzle as the original Vox routine. This is exactly
how it works:
• You need to set the premise that the spectator will either concentrate on
the hand that has the object or the empty hand. (see performance)
• Then, you need to explain to them that if they are concentrating on the
hand that has the object, they should bring that hand forward and if they
are concentrating on the empty hand they should bring the other hand
forward (the hand with the object). In a few words, whichever hand the
spectator is concentrating on they will bring the hand which has the object
forward, thanks to the logic puzzle which is built into the routine.  
So, if the logic puzzle is the same, what makes the 2.0 version different I hear
you ask. Well, as mentioned elsewhere in this book, I like the no question
version that I created almost 2 years ago but the problem with it was, that it
wasn’t suitable for all spectators because some people had difficulty following
the directions that were needed for the logic puzzle to work. Because of that,
I found myself performing one of the other routines (Verbalist/Verbalist 2.0/
Veritas) more often, which are unlikely to fail because they are extremely
simple for the spectator to follow.
Having said that, I always wanted to work on Vox a little more because I

By Manos Kartsakis
believed that it had great potential. So, instead of changing the logic puzzle
which worked flawlessly, I decided to change the presentation in order to make
it easier for the spectator to follow. Here are the most significant changes that I
made:
• There is no liar/truth teller premise. In my opinion, as far as the premise is
concerned this is much more straightforward and clear.
• I have added subtleties and ideas in order to make the spectator follow the
instructions better.
• As a result of the previous two, the routine is easy for the spectators to
follow and at the same time very deceptive. This is the combination I was
looking for.
Refining details/subtleties:
Let’s take a closer look at why and how this routine works.  
In the beginning of the routine, it is very important to establish the logic
behind the procedure you are going to follow. The premise is simple. The
spectator hides something and you will try to find it. You can either do this the
easy way, if the spectator concentrates on the hand that has the object. Or, the
hard way, if he chooses to concentrate on the empty hand. This premise not
only makes sense, but it also sets you up for the logic puzzle which you will use
a little later. 
The second thing you need to do, is establish that the spectator is genuinely
concentrating on one hand. You want this to be clear in his mind because
when you say a little later “…bring forward the hand you are concentrating
on…” you want them to know which hand you are talking about and not get
confused. 
The third and most important thing you must do, is make clear to the spectator
which hand he needs to bring forward. I’ve found that in order for this to be
successful, there are 3 elements in play.
• Be clear with your instruction, avoid repetition and stick to the script

V
• (either the one that is provided here or something that you think is even
better). The way the script works for me, is to explain it in two parts. First,
I say what he should do if he wants to make it easy for me, pause (this sinks
in quite easily) and then explain what he should do if he has chosen to
make it difficult for me. (see performance section again).
• I provide a visual cue that I truly believe makes a big difference and
helps the spectator a lot. As I explain that he should bring the hand he is
concentrating on forward, I also bring one of my hands forward to provide
a visual example. Then, when I say that if he has chosen to make it difficult
for me he should bring the other hand forward, I move the hand I had
previously extended behind my back and bring the other hand forward. I
believe this visual example really helps communicate what I want them to
do.
• It must be very clear to the spectator, that if they have chosen to do this
the hard way, then they must bring forward the opposite hand to the one
they are concentrating on (thus forcing them to bring out the hand that
contains the object). To help clarify this, I always include the following
words in my script… “However, if you decided earlier that you wanted
to do this the hard way…”). The reason for this is to highlight that the
spectator has already made their choice and that they should stick with it.
Another important subtlety is the one that follows. After the spectator has
brought his hand forward, you know that the hidden object must be in that
hand thanks to the logic puzzle built in the routine. However, I do not choose
to reveal this at this point. I feel that by looking sceptical and asking them to
bring the other hand forward, helps in two ways. The first thing is that it helps
disguise the fact that the spectator had to bring forward the hand holding the
object. The second reason I think this is important is that the action of just
switching hands so casually, emphasises the fairness of the procedure and gives
to the whole routine an air of openness and freedom. 
Finally, the last subtlety that I want to analyse, is how to deliver the revelation
of the hand. Two things are important here. The first and most important thing
is to deliver the revelation with conviction. This is a 50-50 routine and

By Manos Kartsakis
you appeared to be sceptical when the spectator put one of his hands forward
the first time. If you appear to be sceptical the second time as well, it will
appear more like a simple guess, than a mind reading effect. The second thing
that is important is the line that I use “It wasn’t that difficult after all”. This
line can be interpreted in 2 ways, depending on what the spectator has decided
to do (make it easy or difficult for you). 
If the spectator has decided to make it easy for you, the above line can be
interpreted as “it was not difficult, you made it easy for me”. However,
if the spectator has decided to make it difficult for you, the same line can
be interpreted as “you wanted to make it difficult for me but it wasn’t
very difficult after all”. This is just a little subtlety that should not be over
emphasised, as the focus of the routine as it is set at the beginning, is to find
the object and not to tell the spectator which role he decided to play (you do
not even talk about roles!). 
That’s it. I hope you like this routine. I genuinely think this is an improved
version of the previous routine and I think it can play for any spectator the way
it is constructed now. I hope you enjoyed it and thank you for your time.

V
VERBALIST:
EFFECT:
The performer instructs two spectators that one of them is to hide a small
object in one of their hands while his back is turned. The spectators are also
instructed to decide which one of them is going to play the role of the truth
teller and which one is going to play the role of the liar.
All this happens secretly and the performer has no knowledge of any of this
when he turns around to face the spectators. He then proceeds to ask the
spectators two or three simple questions like “Do you have the object?” or “Is
it in this hand?” and at the end the performer is able to determine the exact
location of the object, as well as what role (liar/truth teller) the spectators are
playing.
PERFORMANCE:
(I will not go through the whole premise again since two examples have
previously been given. Instead, I will skip to the part in which the performer
instructs the spectators what to do).
“In a moment I will turn my back and face the other way. While my back is
turned I would like you to do two things. Firstly you will need to decide which
of you is going to hide the object and in which hand you will place it.
Then you must decide which of you is going to play the role of the liar and
who is going to be the truth teller. You can do this silently by showing each
other a thumbs up for the truth teller and a thumbs down for the liar. This
way I won’t be able to hear anything.
Either one of you can play these roles, and you can hide the object in any
hand. When I turn around it should be clear to you both who is the liar and
who is the truth teller.
I would also like you both to keep your hands firmly closed behind your back,
so no one could know where the object is, even if they were looking from
behind.”

By Manos Kartsakis
At this point you must look away. Only when the spectators indicate that they
have completed these actions will you turn to face them. At this point, both
spectators should be holding their hands behind their back.
“Ok, in a few moments I will be asking a couple of simple questions, using
your responses to those questions I will try to figure out if you are lying or
telling the truth. Your only job is to answer each question in character, whilst
trying not to give anything away.
From experience, I have found that it is those who have chosen to lie that
usually need a little more time to think about how they should answer. So, to
give you a fair chance, I will give you some time to think about your answer
before you say it.
I am even going to tell you what my first question will be, so you have time to
think about your answer and then I am going to ask one of you this question.
My first question is extremely simple, I am going to ask you “Do you have
the object?” remember to answer in character. Take a moment to think about
your answer. Good.”
Note: For clarity, we will refer to the two spectators as spectator A and
spectator B.
Performer to Spectator A: “Do you have the object?”
Spectator A: “Yes”.
Performer: “Good. Now I will ask one of you another question. I will touch
one of you on one of your hands and ask you if it contains the object. You
must take a few seconds to think about your answer and then give me your
answer when you are ready.”
The performer touches spectator B on his right arm and says: “Is the object in
this hand?”
Spectator B answers: “No”.
The performer turns to spectator A, touches him on his right arm and says: “I

V
am going to ask you the same question, only this time I want you to answer in
your head. Say nothing out loud and remember to answer in character. Is the
object in this hand?”
After a couple of seconds of silence the performer says: “I know you were
thinking YES, however, I don’t believe you. I knew you were lying all along. I
believe that both your hands are empty.”
The performer turns and touches spectator B on his right hand and says: “You,
on the other hand, were telling the truth, that’s how I know the object is here.”
Spectator B brings his right hand forward and opens it to reveal the object.
THE METHOD:
Before we go into the method you have to admit that this sounds
pretty amazing, doesn’t it? When I created this effect, I wanted it to look exactly
like the version in which you use the well-known gimmick that uses electronics
to give you a clear reading on which hand the object is in. Usually, performers
who use this method will ask a simple question like “Is the object in this
hand?” in order to create the false impression that this effect is accomplished
by reading the spectator’s body language.
Well, this effect is pretty much the same but without any gimmicks. I am not
saying that this makes it better than the electronic version. There are things
that you can accomplish using the electronic gimmick that you could not do
with this version. Colin McLeod has some amazing work on this which he
shares in his ‘Penguin’ lecture. Definitely check it out!
Imagine having done a great job in the past using the electronic version, and a
potential client who watched that performance asks you for a demonstration
when you do not have the gimmick with you. This is the perfect backup in my
opinion for such an occasion. So, regardless of which method you have been
using until now, I do believe that there is a lot of value in learning this method.
Now let’s talk about how this actually works. Hopefully you haven’t been able
to figure it out yet. Whilst this effect does not use the same method as the other
effects, it is very similar in thinking.

By Manos Kartsakis
There is a logic puzzle behind this effect, but this one works in a very different
way. For clarity, the outcome detailed earlier is actually one of two possible
scenarios that you could encounter. I intentionally started with that scenario
because once you grasp the basic concept of the logic puzzle then everything
else will be very clear.
Before we go further let me show you something. Below there is a chart that
highlights how 2 spectators would respond if you asked them these 2 questions:
“Do you have the object?” and “Is it in this hand?” Pointing to their right and
left hand each time. Remember one spectator is telling the truth and the other
has been instructed to lie.
Notice in the grid above how all answers are “Yes”, with the exception of a
single “No”. Before we explain more, let’s take a look at another scenario. This
time the liar will have the object. You will see later why it does not matter
which hand the object is in. At this point, we are only examining the two
possible scenarios: Either the truth teller has the object or the liar does.
Notice again how in the grid above all the answers are “No” with the exception
of a single “Yes”. Obviously there is a pattern here. Let us examine the
information that we can extract from the first question which is “Do you have
the object?”.
As you can see in both grids it doesn’t matter who you ask, because both
spectators will give you the same answer. If the answer to this questions is
“Yes”, then you immediately know that the truth teller has the object (you don’t
know who the truth teller is yet) and if the answer is “No”, then you will know

V
that the liar must be holding the object (you don’t know who the liar is yet).
This will always be true, because the liar will always deny having the object and
as a result will always say “No”, and at the same time the truth teller will also
say “No” because he genuinely doesn’t have it.
A “Yes”, will always indicate that the truth teller has it. The liar (who is empty
handed) would lie about it and say “Yes” (that he has it) and of course the truth
teller would say “Yes” too, since he is telling the truth.
It is important to ask this question for two reasons. The first is that now you
know whether you are looking for the truth teller or the liar.
Now that you know who you are looking for, here’s the second piece of
information that will help to clarify how this logic puzzle works.
In the second question where you ask “Is it in this hand?” (pointing to a
specific hand each time) you are looking for the only answer that is different
than all the others. When you find that different answer, the object is always
being held by that person, but is located in their opposite hand.
If you examine the first grid again, the only “No” that can be given is by the
holder of the object who is hiding it in the opposite hand to that which is being
pointed to.
In the second example, the only “Yes” that can be given is by the holder of the
object who is hiding it in the opposite hand to that which is being questioned.
If you are thinking that I did not ask all of those questions in the performance,
then you would be right as the method would have become too transparent.
For example, let us assume that after asking the first question, that the spectator
has replied “Yes” (indicating that he is holding the object). If you were to now
ask him “Is it in this hand”, for each of his hands and he was to reply “Yes”
both times, it would instantly become clear that he must be lying (as the object
can’t be in both hands).
To combat the above, this effect has been structured in such a way that we can
avoid this scenario. This is achieved by directing each of the questions as

By Manos Kartsakis
follows -
Note: It does not matter who is the liar or the truth teller, the structure will
always remain the same:
Addressing spectator A - “Do you have the object?”
Addressing spectator B - “Is it in this hand?” (pointing to his RIGHT hand)
Addressing spectator A - “Is it in this hand?” (pointing to his RIGHT hand)
During this procedure it is very likely that either spectator B in the second
question, or spectator A in the third question, will give you a different answer
than in the first question. If this happens then it will be clear where the object
is, and which role each of them has chosen.
As an example:
Addressing spectator A - “Do you have the object?” and he says “Yes” (this
indicates that the truth teller will be holding the object).
You now address spectator B - “Is it in this hand?” (pointing to his right hand)
– He says “Yes”
You now ask spectator A - “Is it in this hand?” (pointing to his right hand) –
He says “No”.
Since this is a different answer, you will know that he is holding the object in
his left hand (as it is the opposite hand to that which you are addressing) and
that he is a truth teller. Also by default, the other spectator must be a liar.
Try the next one on your own.
Addressing spectator A - “Do you have the object?” and he says “No” (you
should now know the role of the object holder (just the role, not the who).
– He says “No.”

V
You now ask spectator A: “Is it in this hand?” (pointing to his right hand) – He
says “Yes”.
At this point you should know exactly where the object is, who the liar is and
who the truth teller is.
The correct answer is, the object is in the left hand of spectator A. Spectator
A is the liar. Spectator B is the truth teller. If you weren’t able to get the right
answer look at the answers they gave. Spectator A gave the only different
answer (that would indicate it’s in the other hand from the one you pointed to)
and if you look closely, you will see that it is obvious he is the liar because in
the beginning he denied having the object (first question) and then he said it
was in one of his hands.
Although this might seem like an obvious lie to you now, it is very well masked
in the structure of this effect for two reasons. The first is that the second
question is different from the first one so that the spectator doesn’t feel that his
answers contradict one another.
The second and more important reason is the time misdirection. This is
why you direct the first question to spectator A, then address the second to
spectator B (allowing some time misdirection from spectator A’s first answer).
You then go back to spectator A to ask the final question.
If you follow the structure of the questioning described on the previous page,
you will sometimes get the different response in the second answer. This is
great, because it allows you to instruct spectator A to answer the third question
in his head, and you will be able to tell him what he is thinking.
Here’s a quick example:
– He says “No”. Since this is the different answer that we are looking for, that
means the object is in his other hand (left) and he is the truth teller.

By Manos Kartsakis
However, even though you know this information already, revealing it now is
not your best option. Instead, you can turn to spectator A asking him the same
question, however, this time you will instruct him to answer only in his mind
(in character of course).
Since you already know that his answer will be “Yes”, (because you already
received the only possible different answer on your second question) you can
now reveal the answer that he is thinking. You can also tell him his chosen
role too (a liar in this instance) and then turn to the other spectator (who you
already know has the object) and reveal both their role and the location of the
object.
Try the following on your own:
Addressing spectator A - “Do you have the object?” and he says “No”.
– He says “Yes”.
You turn to spectator A and say - “I am going to ask you the same question,
but this time answer in your head, in character of course. Is it in this hand?”
(pointing to his right hand).
Take a moment to think about it. Did you get it?
The answer is that spectator A is thinking of “No” and he is the truth teller.
Spectator B is the liar and has the object in his left hand.
If you didn’t get it, here is what you should have thought:
The answer to the first question was “No”. So we are looking for the liar. The
second answer was “Yes”(a different answer) indicating that spectator B is
our liar and that the object is in his left hand (since the second question was
directed at the spectator’s right hand).
We also know that spectator A is a truth teller and that they will answer “No”
to the second question (as we have already received the different answer). This
allows us to have spectator B answer the second question in their mind and we

V
can then reveal their thoughts as above. Take a moment to understand how the
effect works up to this point and then we will examine the other possible
scenario.
Up to this point we have seen what happens when you receive the different
answer on either the second or third response. The other possible scenario is
that all three answers are the same. In a moment I will explain both how to
handle this, and why it happens to be one of my favourite outcomes.
Should you ever receive three “Yes”, or three “No” answers, this will indicate
that the object must be in one of the two hands that you pointed to. In each of
these instances you will still know whether you are looking for the liar or the
truth teller (based upon the first answer).
Let’s take a look at an example of where this could happen so that you can see
how we would handle it.
– He says “Yes”.
You now ask spectator A - “Is it in this hand?” (pointing to his right hand) –
He says “Yes”.
This tells us that the object must be in either spectator A’s right hand or
spectator B’s right hand (as yet, we do not know which it is). At this point,
you must use the wonderful linguistic ploy that originates from Max Maven’s
Kurotsuke routine.
To do this you will suggest the following:
“At this point I am pretty confident that I know which three hands are empty,
and as a result I now know exactly where the object is.”
Turn towards either spectator and tap their right hand asking them to open it.
There are only two possible scenarios at this point:

By Manos Kartsakis
If it is discovered that the object is in this hand, then you will suggest - “Great,
I was pretty sure that you were telling the truth and that he (pointing to the
other spectator) was lying.” Remember, we knew that we were looking for the
truth teller when we received our first “Yes” answer.
If you see that the hand is empty, you will suggest - “Good, your other hand
is also empty. I knew you were lying all along, (you then turn to the other
spectator and point to his left hand) and this hand is also empty as you are
hiding the object here (as you say the final words you will tap the spectator’s
right hand which will then be opened to reveal the object)”
This linguistic ploy seamlessly allows us to cover each instance in a very logical
way. What really helps to sell this process, is that the instant the first hand is
opened, you can immediately reveal each of the spectator’s roles.
The rhythm of the revelation sequence is so rapid, that no one will ever
remember that the first (liar/truth teller) role was only revealed after the
first hand was opened. Confidence is the key to the successful delivery of the
revelation.
Initially this may seem a lot to remember, however, a few trial runs will prove
just how easy this is.
IN SUMMARY:
You will only ever ask three questions:
1. “Do you have the object?” - To spectator A
2. “Is it in this hand?” - To spectator B (addressing their right hand)
3. “Is it in this hand?” - To spectator A (addressing their right hand)
There are only 2 possible outcomes:
1. You get a different response on one of the answers. You now know
everything.
2. You get three identical responses. In this instance you use Max
Maven’s wonderful linguistic ploy.

V
FINAL THOUGHTS:
I also want to mention at this point, that I always choose to point to the right
hand of both spectators when I ask the question “Is it in this hand?”. Although
this is not necessary for the logic puzzle to work, I do this so that I will never
forget which hands I have pointed to when l later come to reveal where the
object is.
Having said that, I always physically tap the hand, rather than saying “Is it in
your right hand?”. I do this for 3 reasons. First of all, this might reveal the
pattern which I follow. Secondly, it makes it easier for the spectator to answer
(since they do not have to think about which hand is the right and which is the
left). Lastly, anyone trying to backtrack the effect will find it more difficult to
do so (this is particularly true for your magician friends).
Also, I would like to highlight why I ask the spectators to keep their hands
behind their backs (in the beginning). Not only does this add to the
impossibility of the effect, it is also far more comfortable for the spectators to
hold this position.
Only when I wish to conclude the effect do I ask them to bring their hands
forward. If they had been instructed to have their hands held forward from the
beginning of the routine, their hands would have become fatigued.
I hope I covered every little detail there is in this effect and I sincerely hope you
enjoy it. It has become one of my favourite effects to perform.
CREDITS:
I developed this effect after watching Atlas Brookings perform his amazing
“Imbalance” effect. It also goes without saying that this effect would not have
been made possible without the incredible influence of Max Maven and the
thinking behind his original Kurotsuke effect. I strongly encourage all readers
to pick up everything they can from these two fine gentlemen.

By Manos Kartsakis
VERBALIST 2.0:
Note: Before reading this routine, please read the original Verbalist routine in
order to understand the 2.0 version better. I have skipped the parts that are the
same in this version, to keep the explanation shorter and more coherent.
A FEW WORDS ABOUT VERBALIST 2.0:
This has always been my favourite logic puzzle based routine, as I believe it
is very simple for the spectators to follow and at the same time extremely
deceptive. When I revisited this routine after it was already published in my
book “V”, I tried to see if I could improve it further. Although I have managed
to make it work by only asking 2 simple questions instead of 3, I have the
feeling that some people will still prefer the original version, and that’s why
I included both in this book. Here, I will only explain how this version is
different to the original, in method. You can refer to the original routine for
more presentational ideas and tips.
METHOD:
In this version of Verbalist, although it uses the same liar/truth teller prem-
ise, you can find where the hidden object is, by asking the spectators 2 simple
questions. You touch one spectator’s hand and ask “Is it in this hand?” and
then you touch the other spectator’s hand and ask the same question (“Is it in
this hand?”). Now, you are ready to proceed with the revelation of the hidden
object.
What actually happens during this procedure is, that you can only have two
possible outcomes-
Scenario 1:
Both spectators give the same answer (“Yes”-“Yes” or “No”-“No”) 
Scenario 2:
Spectators give a different answer (“Yes”-“No” or “No”-“Yes”) 
In order to understand both scenarios better, we will have to take a closer look.
The following two tables show what happens when the spectators hide the

V
object in their right hand.  The right hand is highlighted because that is the
hand we always touch when we ask both spectators “Is it in this hand?” (As
you will see later, it doesn’t matter if it’s the liar or the truth teller who has it).
Keeping in mind that we always touch the right hand of both spectators when
we ask “Is it in this hand?” as explained in the original Verbalist routine, you
can see that in this case, regardless who has the object, both spectators give
the same answer when we touch their right hand (Yes-Yes or No-No). When
that happens, we know for sure that the hidden object is in one of the two right
hands that we touched.  Once we know that, we can proceed with Max Maven’s
Kurotsuke technique in exactly the same way as it was explained in the original
Verbalist.  Let’s see what happens when the spectators have the object in their
left hand.  Again, the right hand is highlighted because that is the one we
always touch when we ask “Is it in this hand?”.
As you can see, in this case, regardless who has the object, when they give a
different answer (No-Yes or Yes-No) we always know 2 things. Keeping in
mind again that we got the 2 different answers when we touched both right
hands, we now know for sure that the object is in one of the two left hands that
we haven’t touched. In this case, we also know that the person who said “Yes”

By Manos Kartsakis
must be the liar and the person who said “No” must be the truth teller. 
Remember! In this case, you must proceed with Max Maven’s Kurotsuke, using
the spectators’ left hands. 
Everything that was shown above is a detailed explanation of how and why this
logic puzzle works. In case you are not interested in the inner workings of this
logic puzzle, this is all you need to know to perform this: 
1) You always touch the spectators’ right hands and ask “Is it in this hand?” 
2) If they both give the same answer (Yes-Yes or No-No), you instantly
know it’s in one of the two right hands (that you touched) and proceed with
Kurotsuke. 
3) If they give a different answer (Yes-No or No-Yes), you instantly know it’s in
one of the left hands (that you didn’t touch) and proceed with Kurotsuke. 
That’s all you need to know. Same answers – Kurotsuke in right hands /
different answers – Kurotsuke in left hands.   
Important!: Please don’t forget to read the script, which makes Kurotsuke
deceptive in the original Verbalist routine, described earlier.
Bonus Idea One - Making the Kurotsuke More Deceptive:
Since in this version, you always use the Kurotsuke technique to reveal where
the hidden object is, you can make it more deceptive by asking “Is this hand
empty?” instead of “Is it in this hand?” 
The reason this is more deceptive is because it makes more sense at the end,
when the spectator opens his hand and it is empty. Remember, the scripting we
use for Kurotsuke is “At this point, I am pretty confident I know which three
hands are empty and as a result, I know exactly where the …(object)*… is”.
Now, if the spectator opens his hand and it’s empty, it makes sense to reveal the
other two empty hands and tell them where the hidden object is because, all of
this time, you were asking if their hands were empty.

V
Changing the script as described above, does not mean that it makes the effect
less deceptive when they open their hand and the object is there because you
have clearly stated one second ago “I know exactly where the …(object)*… is”. 
*Of course, you do not use the word “object”, you either say “coin” or “billet” or
anything else, depending on what the spectator is hiding. 
Changing the question does not affect the logic puzzle. Again, if you get two
answers that are the same (Yes-Yes or No-No) you know the object is in one of
the two hands you touched (right hands – because we said we always touch the
right hands). If you get a different answer (Yes-No or No-Yes) the object is in
one of the hands you didn’t touch (left hands).
IMPORTANT:
The only difference in the logic puzzle if you ask “Is this hand empty?” is
that in the scenario when they give different answers (Yes-No or No-Yes), the
spectator who says “No” is always the liar and the spectator who says “Yes”
is always the truth teller. Earlier, we saw that with the question “Is it in this
hand?” the opposite was true.
One last thing you can do to make the Kurotsuke technique more deceptive
is, when you have the scenario where the 2 spectators give a different answer
(regardless which question you chose to ask), because you know for sure which
spectator is the liar, you can reveal that before you ask them to open their
hand. I will offer an example to make it more clear: 
Imagine you asked “Is this hand empty?” to both spectators and one said “Yes”
and the other said “No”. Now you know that the spectator who said “No” is the
liar (because you asked if the hand was empty), so you say to the spectator who
plays the role of the liar: 
“I think the fact that you cannot lie very convincingly is actually a
compliment for you. I know you are the liar. That’s how I know which 3 hands
are empty, and so I know exactly where the …(object)… is. Open this hand.”
(left hand – because they gave different answers).

By Manos Kartsakis
Of course, then you proceed with Kurotsuke. If the hand has the object,
everything you just said, makes sense. If the hand is empty, you proceed by
eliminating all the empty hands and again everything you said makes perfect
sense.
Bonus Idea Two - Making it Interesting/Revealing More:
What I offered above is the modus operandi for finding where a hidden
object is, in the most innocent and organic way I could come up with. What
I described was the core method, without a presentation or a justification for
playing the game. I did that because I wanted to focus on the method and make
it abundantly clear so that everyone could understand it perfectly. However, I
do think that it is extremely important to come up with a good presentation, in
order to make it interesting and entertaining.
Although I am sure that many of you are perfectly capable of coming up with
your own presentational ideas around the method that I am offering, I will
include a presentation that works pretty well for me, makes the routine more
interesting and entertaining, gives a justification for playing this game and also
gives you the opportunity to reveal more than just where the object is hidden.
Description:
The performer explains, that he has always been fascinated by mystery stories
since he was a kid. He explains, that there is one scene in particular that he
enjoyed the most and that was when the detective gathered everyone in the
same room at the end and revealed who the culprit was, as well as where the
stolen goods were hidden. The performer explains, that he was amazed by the
detective’s impeccable deductive reasoning and he used to try and re-enact the
same scene with his parents, in their living room. He would make them hide
something in the house, then he would try to figure out who hid it, where and
what exactly the hidden item was.
The performer, asks two spectators to take part in a mystery that they will
create together. He says, that they should write down on a piece of paper,
something that they want to steal in this imaginary scenario. The performer
explains, that they should not be too predictable and write something like

V
money, a diamond or a painting but they should write something unusual, like
stealing a peanut butter sandwich from someone’s kitchen or a lollipop from a
baby.
The performer turns his back while the two spectators decide what to write
down, then he instructs them to crumble the piece of paper into a ball and
place it on the table. When the performer turns around, he explains that they
will play a game with this piece of paper and they have to hide it in one of their
hands. Also, one of them will play the role of a liar and the other the role of the
truth teller. The performer’s task is, to use his deductive reasoning skills to find
where the hidden paper ball is. After the performer does that successfully, he is
also able to tell the two spectators exactly what they imagined stealing.
Method:
Of course, you use the logic puzzle described earlier to find where the paper
ball is. As far as acquiring the written piece of information, you can use a few
different methods.
The one I use the most is an impression device. The spectators write down what
it is they want to steal, crumble the piece of paper and place it on the table. I
then turn around, explain the liar truth teller game and that they should hide
the paper ball in one of their hands, (this allows for some time misdirection
between the moment they write it down and the moment of the peek). I tell
them, that I will turn around once again so they can decide who is going to
play each role and also hide the paper ball. As I turn my back, this is when I
pick up the pad to put it away (as it is no longer needed), and I casually peek
what is written on the impression device as I put it in my inside jacket pocket.
Because of the time misdirection, the focus of the routine being on hiding the
paper ball and deciding which role to play, this peek goes unnoticed by the
spectators. Although your back is turned and no one can see clearly what you
are doing, it is important to execute the peek as if the spectators were looking
at you. You should not be caught staring at the pad for no reason. This would
raise suspicion and would inform the spectators that something happened. If

By Manos Kartsakis
you decide to use the impression device method, I would strongly suggest that
after you find where the paper ball is, you tell the spectator who is holding it,
to put it in their pocket and then proceed with the revelation of the item they
imagined stealing. With the paper ball out of the way, the spectators are left
with the impression that they were just thinking of something and you were
able to tell them what it was. We will discuss later, how you can add even more
to this revelation.
A simple billet switch could also be used to gain access to the spectator’s
written information. In this instance, we would offer to demonstrate how the
spectator should hide the card in one of their hands (by taking the folded card
from them and placing both of our hands behind our back). The moment that
the billet is out of the spectator’s view, it can be switched for the dummy billet
that is hidden in our back pocket. To get your peek, you will simply retrieve
the card at a suitable moment and read it whilst your back is turned (this
can be done as the spectators are deciding who should hold the card). After
successfully locating the hidden billet, you will take a second blank card from
your pocket and write the peeked information on it. After doing so, you will
hand this to the spectator and take their folded card from them. Opening their
billet (which is blank), you will miscall the information you peeked before
refolding it and placing it into the pocket which contains their genuine card.
You can now ask the spectator to read aloud what you wrote on your card,
proving that you were indeed correct. Should anyone ask to see the spectator’s
billet, then you can simply reach into your pocket and hand it to them. A
third method for this effect would be the classic centre tear. If you choose this
method, you should tell the spectators that they should write down what they
want to steal, so that no one hears them talking about it and then you tell them
that you do not need this anymore and you are going to destroy the evidence of
the crime, should they ever be arrested. You tear the billet (I would recommend
a real-time centre tear) get your peek and give them the torn pieces to hold
and hide in one of their hands. You proceed as in the first method with the
impression pad. Once you have found where the torn billet is, you ask them to
put it in their pocket and you proceed with the mind reading phase.

V
Making it Entertaining:
Since you already know what the spectators wrote down, you can proceed in
many different ways in the mind-reading phase, depending on your character,
as well as your audience.
You can continue in a similar truth teller/liar premise, where you ask the
spectator who was left holding the billet some information about what they
stole and they are free to tell the truth or lie about it. They are free to change
character in every question you ask them. Of course, you always know whether
they are telling the truth or not because you know what they wrote down.
For example, let’s assume they wrote down they want to steal a lollipop from a
baby: 
Performer: “Now, tell me about this thing you decided to steal and remember,
you can either tell the truth or lie. Is it something that fits in the palm of your
hand, or, is it something much bigger than that?” 
Spectator: “It’s much bigger than that…”
Performer: “LIAR! Ehm… excuse me… sometimes I get carried away with
this. As I said before, I enjoy playing the role of the detective a little too
much…” 
Another thing you can do is, use something like Wayne Dobson’s “Wayne’s
Exchange” (a.k.a. The Sex Trick), where you imply that it is something different
(and probably not as innocent) as the thing they wrote. As I said before, this
depends on your character and the audience you perform for. Wayne’s brilliant
script does not work for this, but I am just giving you food for thought, in case
you want to come up with your own script to do this.
Finally, you can add a lot of other pieces of information for the revelation that
were never written down but are logical assumptions. If we assume again, that
the spectators wrote down that they decided to steal a lollipop from a baby,
before revealing this exact thought, you can say things like “I am sensing that
someone is crying, does this make sense?”, or “I think there is also a woman

By Manos Kartsakis
present in this scene, but, you didn’t steal something from the woman but
from someone else… wait, I think that the woman gave something to someone
else and then you stole it from the other person”.
I am not going to add more here since it’s going to be a different thing every
time and you have to be able to think on your feet and come up with additional
things you can reveal. This additional information is usually about the place
this is happening, as well as the people participating in this.
Note: If you decide to have the spectators write something down on a billet/
piece of paper, you can also use the information that was written down, to find
out exactly where the billet is hidden. This is possible only in the scenario that
the 2 spectators give the same answer (Yes-Yes or No-No), all you have to do is
ask one clever question to find out who the liar is and who the truth teller is.
Example: Let’s assume you asked both spectators “Is this hand empty?”
and they both said “Yes”. Now, you know that the billet is in one of the right
hands (because you touched both right hands when you asked that question
– remember?). Assuming you know they wrote down they want to steal a
lollipop, you ask one of the two spectators: 
“I will ask you one more question and please remember to answer in
character. The thing you decided to steal… could it fit in the palm of your
hand or is it something much bigger than that?” 
If they respond “It is much bigger than that”, then you know this person is the
liar, so when he said that his hand was empty, he lied about it. So, that’s where
the billet is. If the spectator had responded “It could fit in the palm of my
hand”, you know this spectator is the truth teller, so when he said that his hand
was empty, he was telling the truth. So, the other spectator is holding the billet.
If you want to use this extra question to find exactly where the hidden billet is,
instead of using Kurotsuke, make sure you remember that it only works when
the 2 spectators give the same answer and please remember what the answer
was and what you asked them.
Besides the examples given above, you can use the same thinking and have

V
the spectators write down PIN codes, names etc and reveal that at the final
phase after you have revealed which hand the piece of paper is in. What I
wanted to offer here is, the core method of the “which hand” routine, make it
as simple as possible so you can focus on your presentation and make it fit your
performance style. What you choose to reveal at the final phase is up to you. I
hope these ideas get your creative juices flowing.

By Manos Kartsakis
VICE VERSA:
EFFECT:
The stage performer addresses his audience, drawing attention to both an
envelope, and two paper bags that have been placed in full view. It is suggested
that this envelope contains something of importance that will soon be revealed.
Suggesting that the audience participates in a little game, he invites everyone to
stand up. The performer hides a coin in one of his hands and asks the audience
members to guess which hand contains the coin.
To keep things fair, the audience are asked to reveal their choice by raising
either their left or right hand depending on their guess. This game is repeated
several times, in each instance those that guess wrong are asked to take their
seats.
With only a couple of spectators remaining, the performer asks each of them to
guess the date of the coin. To help them out a little, it is suggested that the coin
was minted somewhere between 1980 and 1999.
With no one guessing the correct date, the performer suggests that he will
continue the demonstration with the person who came closest, and invites any
remaining spectators to take their seat.
Drawing attention to the two paper bags, the performer asks the spectator to
choose one. The chosen bag is then thrown to the spectator who now opens
it to find a gift voucher, signifying that they have won a meal for two at a local
restaurant.
The performer congratulates the spectator on their choice and then draws all
attention back to the remaining bag. This bag is then emptied onto the stage
(with an audible thud) revealing that it contains nothing more than a house
brick.
The performer suggests that he knew that this spectator would be successful
with every choice they made right from the very beginning.
The envelope which has been in full view throughout is then handed to the

V
participant to open. Inside is a printed note which describes the participant
perfectly.
PERFORMANCE:
“I truly believe that every single one of us has the potential to do great things.
As an example, I am absolutely certain that one of you, here tonight, will do
something incredible.
If I were to explain what is about to happen, no one would believe me and so I
have brought with me a little proof. This proof comes in the shape of these two
bags, and the envelope which you can see resting on the table.
For now, I would like you all to join me in a simple game, can those that are
able to, please stand up. Thank you. Now, in a moment I will place both my
hands behind my back and will hide this coin in one of them.
Your job is to try and guess which hand it is in. In order to keep things fair,
and to keep track of who is right and who is wrong, please hold up either your
right hand or your left hand depending on where you think the coin is located.
Let’s begin. Ok, I now have the coin in one of my hands, please raise the hand
that you believe holds the coin, either the left or the right. Good… please keep
that hand firmly in the air.
This time I had the coin in my right hand (You will now open both of your
hands to show which one holds the coin). Congratulations to all of you who
are holding up your right hand, you did indeed guess correctly and can
remain standing.
Can everyone else please take their seats.
We will now play a few more rounds until we are left with a handful of people.
If you guess correctly, please remain standing, and if you guess incorrectly
please take your seat.”
You will now repeat this procedure until less than ten spectators remain
standing.

By Manos Kartsakis
Note: Should all of your spectators decide to choose the same hand, then it is
important that they decide amongst themselves who will change hands so that
the eliminations flow more fluidly.
When you reach this position you suggest -
“Congratulations to everyone who is still on their feet, let us speed things up
by doing something different. Rather than guess which hand the coin is in, I
would like you all to try and guess the date that this coin was minted.
To give you a fighting chance this is a year between 1980 and 1999.”
Pointing to each of the spectators in turn (who remain standing) you ask them
to call out a different date. You sadly suggest that no one got the date correct
and that it was in fact 1992.
Since no one got it correct, you suggest that you will use the spectator who was
the closest. You ask each of them to call out their dates a second time so that
between them they can decide who was closest.
With one spectator now singled out from the rest, the others are asked to take
their seats. Congratulating the single remaining spectator on his intuition, you
direct his attention to the two bags which have been in full view throughout.
Standing between them you comment -
“There are two paper bags resting on the table, one to my left, and one on my
right. Since you have no idea what is in these bags I will only suggest that the
contents of one will make you very happy, and the other...hmm...Let’s just say
that it has the potential to give you a headache.
Now unfortunately you cannot have both bags, instead you will have to make
a choice between the two. Look at me, and please tell me, which bag do you
want me to keep? The one to my left, or the one on my right? Whichever bag
you choose, that is the one I will keep.”
Let’s say the spectator chooses the bag on the performer’s right.
“Good. As I said the bag you choose is the one I will keep. So we will keep this

V
one and leave the one you didn’t want to one side for a moment. Here, catch…
It’s yours… Are you ready?”
Here you will pick up the bag they chose and throw it to them.
“Please open it and let everyone know what is inside.”
The spectator will now open the paper bag to discover a rolled up piece of
paper. The spectator is then asked to open up the paper and read the note
aloud.
The note informs the spectator that they have won a dinner for two at a local
restaurant and receives a round of applause from the audience.
You now direct all attention back to the remaining bag. This is now inverted,
allowing its contents (a house brick) to be dropped to the stage with a loud
thud.
The performer comments -
“I am so happy that you made the right choice… the guy last night wasn’t so
fortunate and ended up with a nasty headache rather than a dinner for two...
just kidding.
Now, please take a moment and think about this. If I had told you in the
beginning that you could guess correctly five times in a row which hand I
would hide a coin in, then guess correctly, or in this case come very close to
guessing, the date on that coin and finally choosing the correct bag to win a
prize, would you have imagined that you could be so successful?”
The spectator at this point usually answers “No”.
Note: If however, he answers “Yes” I say “Good. I did too. Maybe it is that
confidence that helped you to make all of the right choices tonight”.
Assuming that they say “No”. I continue -
“Think about this though, although what happened here tonight might have
seemed highly improbable, as you can see it is far from impossible.

By Manos Kartsakis
Since we were playing this game with so many people it is only logical that
someone in the audience would be able to guess correctly each and every time.
If you were to think about the date, you could reason that there were only
twenty possible dates to choose from, and so once again it is only logical
someone could guess correctly or at least come very close to getting it right.
Finally, in the end, you would be right in thinking that it was just a fifty-fifty
chance of this spectator getting it right. In conclusion, you can clearly see that
there could be a perfectly rational explanation behind all of this.
I believe that the same holds true of many other choices that we make in life.
I am not saying we have to base our every decision on intuition alone. When
we have a goal that we wish to achieve, there is always a perfectly rational
way of doing so, no matter how improbable it might seem at first.”
Addressing the single remaining spectator -
“Now, if at the very beginning I had singled you out and explained what I
wanted you to achieve you would have had very little faith in your ability to
do this. However, I always had complete faith in you, and am not just saying
that to be nice, I can prove it.”
You now draw attention to the envelope that has been in full view since the
very beginning. This is handed to the spectator who is requested to open it up
and read its contents out loud.
The letter inside contains a very detailed description of the spectator, leaving
the audience with no doubt of the performer’s abilities.
You now offer the spectator a final round of applause as they take their seat.
The routine is then brought to a close with the following words -
“Everyone here tonight has the potential to do great things, If you truly set
your mind to something then failing becomes almost impossible… and I
believe this is true for all of us. I will leave you with those thoughts. Thank
you and goodnight!”

V
THE METHOD:
This effect can be broken down into three basic parts:
1. Secretly selecting a spectator from the audience and preparing the
final prediction based on his description.
2. Controlling him so that he is the only spectator who remains
standing.
3. Forcing him to choose the correct bag.
We will talk about the third part a little later. First, let’s analyse the first two
parts.
Before the show starts you must first choose your target spectator (who will
remain standing throughout the performance). With a suitable spectator
located you will write out your prediction which must contain a highly detailed
description of them. The description of the spectator must then be sealed
inside an envelope which you will markup as your prediction.
Your prediction must include such information as their approximate age,
hair colour, any special facial features (moustache, sideburns etc.) clothes
(including colours/motifs), and any other details that make this spectator stand
out from the rest.
Choosing the right spectator is an essential part of the routine. Later, when
the description is read, you want there to be no question as to who it belongs
to. Try to find someone unique and preferably one who looks deserving of the
prize rather than someone who looks loud and boisterous.
If you are performing in a smaller venue where everyone knows each other,
you may wish to consult the organisers about who to choose. In this fashion,
you will be more likely to find a more cooperative, helpful and caring
participant.
Now that you have chosen your target, and have written your final prediction,
all you need to do is to make sure that he makes all the right choices
throughout the effect. We will begin by detailing how to handle the ‘which
hand’ part. This is made possible with the use of a coin shell.

By Manos Kartsakis
Note: An alternative handling will be detailed later which does not require the
use of the shell.
After describing the rules of the game you will place both of your hands behind
your back. The spectators are now asked to raise one of their hands in the air.
You must casually notice which hand your target spectator is holding up. As
soon as you have noticed this you must place the coin (nested in the shell) in
the same hand before bringing your hands forward.
You can now very cleanly reveal the location of the coin stating its position i.e.
that it is contained in the left/right hand. You must also show the other hand
to be unmistakably empty. You can now ask all those who made an incorrect
guess to take a seat.
The second time you put your hands behind your back you must separate the
coin from its shell. You will now place the shell in one hand and the coin in
the other. If you are adept at coin magic you may wish to position both so that
they can easily be palmed.
Bringing both hands forward in closed fists, you can now allow your spectators
to make their second guess. Notice how in this instance your hands are
outstretched in front of you before the spectators have made their guess.
Once again you must take notice of which hand your target spectator is
holding up. You can now open the corresponding hand to reveal the coin
inside.
In this instance, you will either open the hand that contains the regular coin
or the hand that contains the shell (remember, make sure it faces the right way
up).
If you are adept at coin work you can casually open the other hand too, keeping
the coin/shell hidden in classic palm position. This will give the appearance
that the other hand looks empty. Please remember that no one will suspect
that there is more than one coin in play. The structure of the routine helps to
hide the fact that the performer is trying to control the outcome during this
procedure.

V
Note: Should you wish you may also perform a shuttle pass as an extra
convincer.
Once again you will ask all those who made an incorrect guess to take their
seats. This same procedure must now be repeated until there are less than ten
spectators remaining (your target will always be amongst them).
Once you are in this position you will ask the audience to applaud those that
remain standing. Under cover of this, you will casually nest the shell.
Now, to speed things up, you will suggest that the remaining spectators try and
guess the date on the coin. While each of the spectators calls out a date, you
must pay careful attention to remember the date that your target calls out, you
must also encourage each spectator to guess a different date.
You can now suggest that unfortunately no one got correct date. Here you will
look at the coin miscalling it as either one year before, or one year after your
target’s chosen year. Whilst doing this you must ensure that your target’s guess
remains the closest.
For example, if your target spectator called out 1991 and another suggests
1990, then you must miscall the date as 1992 (thus making your target
spectator’s guess closer.
Should you find yourself in a position where the years either side of your target
are called out by other spectators, then you will simply look at the coin and
miscall your target spectators year as the correct one asking if anyone named
that year. Obviously, in this instance, your target will raise his hand allowing
you to dismiss everyone else.
You must only look at the date on the coin after everyone has made their guess.
It should appear that you yourself, do not know what the date is. As an added
convincer, you may also wish to turn the coin towards a light as you apparently
read off the date.
After calling out the date you must ask your spectators who made the closest
guess. It is always more convincing if your target spectator nominates

By Manos Kartsakis
themselves. Should they fail to do so, you can simply have everyone name their
dates for a second time, (as though you had forgotten them) subsequently
singling your target out.
With your target spectator isolated you will ask the other spectators to take a
seat as they receive a round of applause. You will now proceed with the next
phase of the effect in which your target must choose between two identical
bags.
As you previously read, one of these bags contains a gift for the spectator and
the other one contains a brick. So that the spectator cannot favour one bag
over the other psychologically, both bags must otherwise be identical in every
way. If the spectator has no preference between the two bags they will never
question your actions.
To control the spectator’s choice of bag you will use a very simple equivoque
process. Whilst many things have been said and written about this technique, it
is very important to be very clear and direct with your instruction.
In a moment you will see that no matter which bag the spectator chooses, they
will always end up receiving the prize.
The first thing to suggest is that the spectator can only have one of the bags,
this will subtly imply that one needs to be eliminated. You will then specifically
suggest “The bag you choose is going to be the one I keep”.
The spectator is now allowed to make their choice. Depending on which bag
they select you will perform one of two actions as follows -
If the spectator chooses the bag with the prize you will say “Good, as I said
the bag you choose is the one I will keep. So we will keep this one (the one he
chose) and leave the one you didn’t want aside for a moment (the one with the
brick in it). Here, catch… It’s yours… Are you ready?” After that, I proceed as
described in the performance.
If the spectator chooses the bag with the brick I say. “Good, as I said, the bag
you choose is the bag I keep. Here, take the one that is yours (the other bag
with the prize). Catch… Are you ready?”

V
Notice how the focus and ownership of each bag changes as a direct response
to the spectator’s choice. By asking if the spectator is ready to catch the bag we
also force a “Yes” response which helps to psychologically reaffirm the choice
that has just been made.
No matter what choice the spectator makes, you must deliver your response
clearly and with full confidence.
Once your spectator has revealed their prize, you can build up suitable
suspense before revealing that the other bag contained a brick. You can
now close the routine with a kicker ending by revealing the contents of the
envelope.
REFINING DETAILS:
The Coin Technique -
If you are adept at sleight of hand but do not own a coin shell, then you can (as
I have) instead use two coins.
If you want to choose a different method to single out a spectator in a crowd
using a single coin, Ken Dyne explained a great method in his Penguin Lecture
which I highly recommend.
If you are using the coin shell, be very careful when nesting it at the conclusion
as you do not want your microphone to pick up on any noise.
Spectator Elimination -
Should you have an instance where there are a lot of spectators on their feet,
you must instruct some of them to change their minds.
Providing there are around ten spectators remaining I will offer a twenty-year
date range for them to choose from (between 1980 and 1999) this helps to
ensure that each of the spectator’s guesses will be different. As a result, you will

V2 by manos kartsakis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to V2 by manos kartsakis

Similar to V2 by manos kartsakis (15)

More from Viplav Halder

More from Viplav Halder (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (19)

V2 by manos kartsakis