Mastering ‘Out Of This World’

Out Of This World is one of the strongest routines in all of card magic. That’s true for several reasons, which we’ll explore—but the fact that it’s easy to do, can engage even large groups of spectators, and has a different flavor compared to most “pick a card” effects, all of this makes it truly special.

Paul Curry, the creator of the original effect, said that Winston Churchill was so amazed by a performance of OOTW (as we’ll call it from now on) that he asked to see it dozens of times in a row. 

But what is OOTW? Here’s the effect: the spectator separates a deck of cards into two piles, trying to follow their “intuition” to divide the cards into reds and blacks without looking at them. In the end, the magician reveals that the spectator has succeeded: the cards are perfectly separated into red and black piles.

Many magicians ask: what’s the best version of OOTW ? There’s a common belief that the original version is already perfect and can’t be improved.

We don’t think that’s true. And to prove it, we’ve examined some of the versions performed by the world’s best magicians. We’ve focused on the most unique and innovative takes (did you know even Derren Brown has his own version?) and tried to analyze how this effect can be made nearly perfect.

We’ll talk about details, presentations, subtleties, and methods—to give you the most complete guide to this effect.

Why Is It So Strong?

One of the most celebrated thinkers in magic, Eugene Burger, recalled that in the 1950s, this was the most popular routine among magicians. Today, we’re used to seeing millions of “pick a card” routines—impossible location effects get a lot of attention from hobbyists. But if you look at the working pros' repertoires, OOTW remains a top choice.

One notable name with many excellent performances of this routine online is Nate Staniforth (a magician, writer, and collaborator of David Blaine). Watching him in action makes it clear how a simple card routine can become something more powerful—and in a sense, more complete.

Because, unlike many effects, OOTW is modular. It can be shortened or lengthened easily, and just as easily adapted to different styles and audiences, as we’ll see shortly.

For example—it can be done with the full deck or just part of it, depending on how long you want the routine to be; cards can be dealt by one or more spectators; the effect can be framed as the spectator’s intuition or the magician’s ability to predict; it can be a quirky interlude in the middle of a set, or a showstopping finale.

Several elements contribute to make this such a strong routine. First, as mentioned, it’s not a “pick a card” effect: we already do plenty of those, so variety is always a good thing.

Second, unlike other effects, here the audience can instinctively relate to the impossibility of the outcome. Think about it: red vs. black is 50/50, like a coin toss. It’s a binary choice—yes/no—that we deal with every day.

If we have to work hard to convince an audience that finding a selected card is impossible (especially when they expect us to find it), an effect like OOTW requires no extra explanation—it already feels impossible. When an effect starts off that strong, it’s a great effect.

The trick itself is simple and requires little to no technical skill, which means you can focus entirely on everything else: presentation, pacing, subtleties, and adapting the performance to suit your character and audience.

But here comes the problem: when things are simple, we often get lazy and don’t put in the effort to make them beautiful. The method is only the starting point—the magic lies in everything else. Watching how the best performers handle OOTW is a powerful reminder of that.

Let’s Talk Methods

Because OOTW has a fairly simple method, YouTube is literally flooded with tutorials in every language explaining how to do it. There’s even a Wikipedia page for Out Of This World that explains the method!

And if you're hearing a little voice in your head screaming, “This is a disaster! How are we supposed to perform when everything’s revealed online?”, let’s instead focus on what we can actually do: how can we make this routine truly unique, special, and different? That’s not something you’ll learn on YouTube.

First, the classic method. The original method involves secretly pre-sorting the deck into reds and blacks before the performance. Two “indicator” cards are removed—one red, one black—and placed face-up. The rest of the cards are dealt face-down onto the two piles, one at a time.

When you reach the midpoint of the deck (i.e., all cards of one color have been dealt), you introduce two new indicator cards, reversed in orientation from the originals, and continue dealing the rest of the deck. At the end, one of the two piles will already be perfectly sorted; the other pile just needs a quick sleight (moving the indicator card from the bottom to the top during an offbeat moment), and then you reveal the cards are correctly separated.

That’s the original method.

Understanding this helps us better grasp the variations that have emerged over time. Broadly speaking, the possibilities break down like this:

• You can start with a prearranged deck (reds/blacks) or a shuffled one. In shuffled versions, the magician spreads the cards and pulls them out one by one, asking the spectator to guess the color each time—but secretly only pulling out cards of the same color.

• Indicator cards can be four (as in the original) or just two (as in David Blaine's version). Some versions don’t use indicator cards at all.

• The switch can involve the indicator cards, or the entire piles, which are stacked and flipped face-up in reversed order.

• The magician might insert intentional “mistakes” in the stack—e.g., a few red cards among the blacks and vice versa. This can make the outcome seem more believable or set up a surprise revelation, such as predicting the identity of the misplaced cards (see Michael Ammar’s performance).

• There might be a discard pile, where uncertain cards are placed.

These are the main technical variants. They’re designed either to enhance the effect or to eliminate the few “dirty” parts of the method.

There are also gimmicked versions using marked cards, stripper decks, or specially printed cards with split faces that show either a red or black card depending on the orientation of the spread.

There’s even a version (now somewhat outdated) where the deck is divided not only into two colors but into all four suits.

While many method variations exist, not much has been done in terms of presentation—and that’s not just our opinion; even Eugene Burger lamented this.

So instead of scouring magic websites for the latest “incredible” OOTW variation, we suggest a different—and much cheaper—approach: watch what the pros do, understand why it works, and borrow the same elements.

What The Pros Do

We’ll say a few words about performances you can easily find on YouTube, which we think are worth watching for different reasons. We’re not concerned with method—we’ve already said, you can find that even on Wikipedia. We’re focusing on what truly makes someone a professional: the ability to create moments of magic. And that has nothing to do with method.

We'll look at three examples.

First up, Nate Staniforth. We’ve already mentioned him, but it’s worth revisiting. When Staniforth performs, he genuinely has an aura about him—he builds a connection with the audience and takes the right steps to turn the performance into a full experience.

He starts in what we think is the best way: placing a card face-down and asking what color it is. This is a brilliant way to introduce the effect without over-explaining and immediately gives the audience a thrill: will the card match their guess?

From there, he uses a single, clear sentence to explain the premise: “I’m gonna have you do the whole deck.” Boom. Simple.

Staniforth’s style is raw, direct, with few words but great impact. The effect speaks for itself and communicates to the spectator that this is truly a 50/50 gamble—it’s risky, and it all depends on their choices. He raises the stakes without adding complex stories or presentations.

He also keeps control of the pace at which the spectator deals the cards—essential to avoid dragging the routine. Finally, his brief recap before the reveal reminds everyone that this was all driven by the spectator’s decisions.

Next, Eugene Burger. His magic is deeply rooted in presentation and atmosphere. In this case, he introduces a ring, which he claims brings great luck to whoever holds it. And yes—the spectator holds the ring while making their guesses.

Burger uses a shuffled deck and draws cards from it, spreading them out as he picks each one. What’s beautiful here is how he handles the cards: he shows genuine interest in the results—he’s part of the experience. He also has a great justification for swapping the indicator cards before continuing: he says he’ll no longer look at the cards and hands the deck to the spectator. It raises the stakes and avoids the usual flimsy excuses.

Two more touches in his routine are worth noting. First, he reveals the outcome without any buildup—this downplays the moment and conceals the pile switch. Second, he ensures the spectator makes a small mistake, then jokingly blames the ring and reclaims it. This intentional imperfection lends the performance a sense of authenticity.

Again, these aren’t big method changes—just small presentation tweaks that make a huge difference.

Lastly, Derren Brown. His version is by far the most original: he performs the effect using photographs of people, asking the spectator to sort them into “positive” or “negative” impressions. At the end, he reveals the spectator unknowingly separated photos marked “ALIVE” from those marked “DEAD.” It’s stunning.

This version is original not only because it doesn’t use playing cards, but because it aligns perfectly with Derren Brown’s style and engages the spectator on a deeper level than simply separating cards. The final impact is so powerful that you don’t even think about the method—you’re more likely to wonder if those people are really dead and feel a chill down your spine.

That’s what we mean when we say the magic is not in the method.

Derren Brown’s version also opens an important discussion: we don’t have to use playing cards. Any object that can be meaningfully divided into two groups will work.

After digging through the Conjuring Archive, we found versions of OOTW using torn cards, ESP cards, and even three interesting variations by Swiss magician Christoph Borer using tarot cards, flyers, and travel brochures.

Does the Perfect Version Exist?

No. But if you’re Eugene Burger, the perfect version for you can exist. If you’re Derren Brown, the perfect version for you can exist. And so on.

No matter what the ad copy of your favorite magic shop says, no version is ever “perfect,” because magic is meant to be performed—and in performance, what the audience sees isn’t the method, but everything else. And everything else can absolutely be perfected to match who you are.

As for the method, feel free to use one of the simple, widely known ones. But everything else—that’s where you can really do the work: What objects will you use? Why are they being divided? Is the magic due to the spectator or the magician? Is it fast or slow? Explained upfront or discovered at the end?

Answering these (and similar) questions won’t change the method—but it will change the magic completely.