One thing i noticed about Sankey 22 blows to the head DVD is that at a couple points he suggests that getting a prediction wrong on purpose will add to the effect, I really haven't had much time to try this out lately. does anyone here do this and what do you feel that it adds to the trick?

Chan Canasta used to do this as he believed it made his other effects where he got it right stronger.

If you're presenting them as "experiments" then you may get a few wrong or very near misses for effect.

If someone choose ''consider'' in a book test, You would look say :
«... I'm not sure if I'm picking right on this, I might be dead on or a bit offset... hmmm considerate... no... considaration, confederate... is it considerate?...»

If you just let them choose a word and reveal it dead on after one second it wont be mentalism, it will be trickery...

People want to experience what reading minds looks like, and I think that missing on purpose is a very good idea.

Juan Tamariz had a book test where he asked various number on a billet, he would say '' ok, since six, one and zero add to eight...'' Now someone at the audience is alway eager to say '' six,one and zero add to seven''.

He then said, ok take the page 7 then...

This way the audience tought that it wouldn't matter which page it was, removing the trickery possibility. Of course some people wouldn't want to miss on a smal equation alike... But it's alway a nice ocnvincer!

PUNX also had an idea, if you where to have a blank billet and you need to read the ''question'' that you peeked earlier, he would open the billet and twist it like he would have opened it writing side down.

~Blizt