Mastering "Any Card At Any Number"

Few plots in card magic are as beloved by magicians as Any Card At Any Number (ACAAN). And for good reason: it’s a direct effect, easy to present, and easy for the audience to understand.

All the greats in magic have created their own method for it—and unlike what we saw when analysing Out Of This World, ACAAN methods can vary dramatically from one version to the next.

These differences, as we’ll see, mostly concern the method, because the effect itself has rarely been altered in order to preserve its simplicity. That’s quite unusual, since creators often feel tempted to add twists and variations.

But ACAAN seems to carry its own aura of simplicity—and that’s something you just don’t mess with. We’ll come back to that.

Before we go further, a bit of housekeeping: not every “card at number” effect qualifies as an ACAAN. In most cases, they’re actually CAANs, where the routine doesn’t allow any card to appear at any number, but only a specific card that has been selected.

And careful—don’t think of a CAAN as necessarily weaker than an ACAAN! When performed well, it can be just as strong. Ultimately, it’s the performer’s responsibility to create the illusion that any card could have been used.

For decades, different versions of card-at-number have circulated, with the most well-known magicians offering their own methods—until David Berglas came along and completely changed the game.

We’ll explore the effect, the principles that make it so powerful, and how those principles have preserved the structure over time. We’ll look at Berglas’ work and discuss methods, all to put together the big picture of this iconic plot.

Why It Works

The main reason this routine is so iconic is because it’s direct and easy to understand. You could say the effect is pure, in a way. And the purer it is, the better it plays.

In fact, ACAAN is conceptually quite similar to Out Of This World. In both cases, the outcome isn’t necessarily impossible, but so statistically unlikely that it creates a strong sense of wonder.

It’s also extremely linear: it’s easy for an audience member to summarise what they just experienced—"the chosen card appeared at the chosen number." No need to be a magician or a card enthusiast to grasp the effect; everyone gets it.

Because the structure is so simple, there’s room to add multiple layers that can make the routine more original, more fooling, or more in tune with your character. Thanks to its clarity, you could even perform it with objects other than playing cards—though that’s rarely done.

Simplicity has another consequence: YouTube is flooded with tutorials on how to perform this trick. This isn’t necessarily good or bad—it’s just a fact. Another fact is that most of those methods are crap.

A crucial point is the method: creators often add layer upon layer, complicating what is, by nature, a simple effect.

At its core, ACAAN consists of two choices: the card and the number. Sometimes the card is forced, sometimes the number; sometimes both are forced, and sometimes neither.

And if your "magic radar" tells you that you should always prefer methods where both the card and the number are freely chosen—well, that’s not always true! What matters isn’t whether the choice is truly free, but whether it feels free.

The point isn’t that the spectator has total freedom, but that they believe they did. Dani DaOrtiz’s ACAAN is a perfect example of this: the choices are extremely limited, but never feel that way.

That sense of freedom has to be baked into the method and performance. You can build more on top of it, sure—but always remember the general rule: less is more.

One thing that can create chaos is tacking on kicker endings (e.g., the card has a different colored back; or the number was predicted in advance). These might appeal to our inner magician—who loves clever methods—but they tend to dilute the spectator’s experience.

The best and most iconic ACAANs (most notably Berglas’s) succeed because they maintain that illusion of total freedom. No ACAAN has ever become legendary among laypeople because it had three surprise endings. What makes it memorable is the purity of the concept: ask someone to name a card and a number—and make that wish come true.

The same "less is more" approach applies to presentations: even top magicians avoid elaborate scripts with this effect, preferring instead to let the directness do the heavy lifting.

Something we should think about is the framing of the effect—who’s responsible for the outcome? Is it the magician? The spectator? Or pure chance? Is that something you want to define in your performance, or would you rather leave it as a gray area for the spectator to interpret?

It’s not a trivial matter. The spectator will inevitably ask themselves, “Why was the card there?”

The answers could be endless: it was there by chance; it was there because they willed it; it was there because the magician secretly placed it there…

It all boils down to a few simple ingredients: two choices (card and number), and one “why.” That’s all you need for a great ACAAN.

The Methods

As mentioned, there are several different methods for performing ACAAN.

They can be categorized based on skill level and how they address the key elements mentioned above—mainly, how much freedom they seem to offer.

Magicians have managed over time to create some truly brilliant methods, especially those using a memorised deck, which allow for the most “real” versions of the effect.

With a memorised deck, since you know the position of each card, it’s enough to shift the stack by a known number of cards to place any card at any number.

Broadly speaking, the key differences between methods include: regular deck vs. gaffed deck; forced or restricted choices vs. completely free choices; impromptu vs. non-impromptu.

These distinctions are a helpful guide when choosing which method to learn. But as mentioned, ACAAN doesn’t require complex methods—it can be incredibly strong even with something simple. A memorised deck might be the only real “skill gate” that meaningfully changes what’s possible.

There are also gaffed decks that promise mind-blowing ACAANs with little to no sleight-of-hand. Only gimmicked decks can match the fairness seen in memdeck versions—a great example is Position Impossible by Brent Braun.

And finally, if the performance context allows it, you can even use pre-show work.

The Berglas Effect

David Berglas deserves his own chapter, as no one has done more to revolutionise the ACAAN as we know it.

Berglas was one of Britain’s most famous magicians. The earliest references to what would become known as the Berglas Effect appear in the 1950s, and Jon Racherbaumer coined the name in his 1984 book At The Table.

The Berglas Effect is essentially an ACAAN—but with extremely strict conditions that, especially at the time, were groundbreaking. As outlined by Magicpedia, these were the conditions:

• The deck of cards are in full view at the start and never touched by the magician.

• The spectator has a free choice of any of the 52 cards.

• The spectator or another spectator has a free choice of any number.

• The spectator or another spectator counts down the cards.

Over the years, the Berglas Effect has become something of a legend, with countless anecdotes of people who witnessed it live—each telling a different and equally astonishing version.

Even The New York Times dedicated a full article to the effect, sending a journalist to Berglas home, where he agreed to demonstrate it.

Digging deeper, the backstory of the Berglas Effect is utterly fascinating. Magicians have long been obsessed with the method. Since many performances took place at Berglas’ home, some theorised he had dozens of prepared decks scattered around and simply used the one that matched the chosen card and number.

As strange as that theory might sound, there may be a sliver of truth—if only because Berglas often asked spectators to name a card and number before even introducing the idea of a trick, and sometimes before a deck was even in view. He would often let several minutes pass between the selection and the reveal, changing the subject and continuing the conversation.

The method behind the Berglas Effect is detailed in The Berglas Effects by Richard Kaufman—a book that’s now very hard to find. But even that book doesn’t explain a single concrete method. Instead, it outlines a variety of principles and techniques that Berglas would combine and improvise with in the moment, based on the situation.

And that’s the brilliance of Berglas' approach: his ACAAN didn’t really have a method, as we’d typically understand it.

In the rare footage of Berglas performing the effect, no two presentations are alike: cards are sometimes counted from the top, other times from the bottom; jokers are sometimes removed, sometimes not; he sometimes hits the card dead-on, sometimes he’s one off.

Skip to 23:50 to see the full performance.

To the magic community, the genius lies in the method’s elusiveness—it defies categorization. But what’s equally fascinating is Berglas approach to the effect.

He was known for his direct, sometimes intense demeanor, and frequently inserted long delays between the selection and the revelation.

Sometimes the performance was treated like an afterthought. The focus was always on the strength of the effect itself—something astonishing that just happens, without elaborate presentations or kicker endings.

Modern Takes

To conclude, we'll quickly look at what some of today’s top magicians do when they perform ACAAN.

One thing that stands out: even when the big names perform this on TV or in their shows, they tend to keep it simple and raw, avoiding elaborate presentations. This aligns perfectly with the less is more philosophy we’ve discussed.

A notable exception is Derren Brown, who once performed a highly original ACAAN with a detailed presentation and two spectators on stage. We published a full breakdown of that performance on One Ahead—and, as is often the case with Brown, his version is extraordinary.

But in most other cases, performances are relatively straightforward.

This is especially true for David Blaine, whose persona is well-suited to an effect that simply happens, no explanation needed.

Asi Wind is also known for outstanding performances of this routine. He uses a memorized deck and a simple, effective technique. His presentation strikes a balance between serious and playful—it’s excellent.

Another great recent version comes from Ollie Mealing, who uses a stopwatch displaying numbers while the spectator decides which card they want. The method is hands-off, and the effect is original—not just in terms of method, but also the audience’s experience.

Popular on One Ahead

• The Jerry's Nugget Whale

• Learn This Powerful Book Test

• Who’s Got The Receipts?

• The Bra Burning Magician

• 7 Magic Body Language Tactics