Practicability

I think you will agree that there is 4 types of trick:

-The one that is not good.

-The one that is average but easy to do.

-The one that is good but too hard to do. (3)

-The one that is great and furthermore practical. (4)

I think we'll both agree on the first two but I want to spend some time on the last 2 point which from now on I will call (3) and (4).

There is lot of routines out there from various magicians.

When you learn a new one or create one you first analyse the effect. Is is powerful enough, will it deceive your audience...

Once you know or create the solution you'll probably try to balance both solution and effect.

Now a question should appears in your mind. Is it practical?

What does it mean?

Is the effect enough strong to use all the techniques/gaff/setup which are involved in?

For instance imagine an effect where you need a 12 cards setup for a single effect. You won't probably do it for the simple reason you don't think the effect worth all the setup needed.

Personally I think the Grail (trick I talked about this morning) will fit in (3) because even if it's an excellent effect and very clean but unfortunately it doesn't worth the set up. Whereas an effect like Diplopia by Paul Vigil belongs to (4) for the simple reason that with 2 techniques you obtain a killer effect. You just have to work on a glimpse and the clocking. This is one of my favorite effect and I always get good reactions with it also because it fits to my character.

But don't think because it's gaffed I won't like it. We can example here use the Kickback effect by Ryan Swigert which involves few props but deliver an awesome impact. I'm also quite in fond of Dice man by Andy Nyman and Kollosal killer by Kenton Knepper. I file all this tricks in the (4) because of their practicability.

To sum it up analyze your trick and try to calculate the practical/effect ratio. If it's under 1 don't do it...