controls how, when, and why the mark handles the counterfeit, then it can pass for the real thing. Perhaps Iâd start by handing over the âfunny-money,â rushing them to put it in their wallet before handing over a real bill, thus avoiding a direct comparison. Similarly, I could start with twenty real hundreds and wait until theyâre in the markâs wallet before introducing the fakes. I could slip the counterfeit into the middle of a pile, then distract or force the mark to count quickly. I could even let the mark test a real bill, then switch it as they reach for their wallet (as per the âticket scamâ). I could be even more creative and plant a fake hundred behind the bar so the mark can compare the fake I give him to another one, apparently from the cash register.
A con man treats information the same way as he would a fake (or real) hundred-dollar bill, manipulating what you discover, and how and when you discover it. If the mark is particularly challenging, then a con artist might focus on what he can prove for a while; for a more gullible victim, the lie would be given greater prominence. In the case of my re-invented Spanish Prisoner scam for Uncle Barry, I kept him focused on what he could see and supported my entire story with a genuine US tax law and vague facts about moving money overseas. This was enough veracity for the average mark. An accountant would certainly need more proof, while a criminal might only need to smell the money to get involved. The line is a game played between hustlers and their intended victim with only two possible outcomes: the con men win or both parties lose. *
Inside the Bubble
A problem with longer cons is that the mark cannot be under constant supervision. He could stumble upon the truth or be talked out of the deal by a third party. Isolating the mark from influences outside of the hustlersâ control is often essential. The easiest way to accomplish this is by building secrecy into the story. Victor Lustig used the threat of political scandal to keep his marks from talking to others and notorious con artist Yellow Kid Weil concocted many scenarios that were supposedly being kept secret from the public for one reason or another. Success of the con is often dependent on not sharing information that is completely false. If the mark does as instructed, he never has the opportunity to properly verify information. This tactic can also explain away conflicting facts, which is why âthe secrets they donât want you to knowâ is a favorite phrase among questionable pitchmen.
Clearly, if the mark does as heâs told, he does not seek advice outside the âcon bubbleâ that the hustlers have created. It also helps to explain why certain facts cannot be verified: after all, they are secret knowledge that the con artist is sharing with the mark for their mutual benefit. For example, inside information that might influence someone to buy or sell shares could be easy to invent and difficult to verify.
Another approach is to anticipate conflicting information and address it before the mark can stumble upon it himself. This prepares the victim to dismiss anything that disproves the story. Additionally, a mark with a strong desire for the bait is easier to fool; if he really wants the prize, then the mark is already biased toward positive proof. A con man who preempts his doubts by preparing him to ignore contradictory information is likely to succeed.
All of these ploys serve another purpose: to isolate the mark. Inside the con artistâs bubble, there is hope and opportunity and confidence; outside the bubble there is doubt and fear. Many con games succeed by making the bubble preferable to harsh realities and cold truths. Often, when a scam is over and the mark has been taken, the loss of that comfortable, hope-filled bubble hurts the mark as much as any betrayal of trust or loss of money. This is why it can be infuriatingly difficult
A con man treats information the same way as he would a fake (or real) hundred-dollar bill, manipulating what you discover, and how and when you discover it. If the mark is particularly challenging, then a con artist might focus on what he can prove for a while; for a more gullible victim, the lie would be given greater prominence. In the case of my re-invented Spanish Prisoner scam for Uncle Barry, I kept him focused on what he could see and supported my entire story with a genuine US tax law and vague facts about moving money overseas. This was enough veracity for the average mark. An accountant would certainly need more proof, while a criminal might only need to smell the money to get involved. The line is a game played between hustlers and their intended victim with only two possible outcomes: the con men win or both parties lose. *
Inside the Bubble
A problem with longer cons is that the mark cannot be under constant supervision. He could stumble upon the truth or be talked out of the deal by a third party. Isolating the mark from influences outside of the hustlersâ control is often essential. The easiest way to accomplish this is by building secrecy into the story. Victor Lustig used the threat of political scandal to keep his marks from talking to others and notorious con artist Yellow Kid Weil concocted many scenarios that were supposedly being kept secret from the public for one reason or another. Success of the con is often dependent on not sharing information that is completely false. If the mark does as instructed, he never has the opportunity to properly verify information. This tactic can also explain away conflicting facts, which is why âthe secrets they donât want you to knowâ is a favorite phrase among questionable pitchmen.
Clearly, if the mark does as heâs told, he does not seek advice outside the âcon bubbleâ that the hustlers have created. It also helps to explain why certain facts cannot be verified: after all, they are secret knowledge that the con artist is sharing with the mark for their mutual benefit. For example, inside information that might influence someone to buy or sell shares could be easy to invent and difficult to verify.
Another approach is to anticipate conflicting information and address it before the mark can stumble upon it himself. This prepares the victim to dismiss anything that disproves the story. Additionally, a mark with a strong desire for the bait is easier to fool; if he really wants the prize, then the mark is already biased toward positive proof. A con man who preempts his doubts by preparing him to ignore contradictory information is likely to succeed.
All of these ploys serve another purpose: to isolate the mark. Inside the con artistâs bubble, there is hope and opportunity and confidence; outside the bubble there is doubt and fear. Many con games succeed by making the bubble preferable to harsh realities and cold truths. Often, when a scam is over and the mark has been taken, the loss of that comfortable, hope-filled bubble hurts the mark as much as any betrayal of trust or loss of money. This is why it can be infuriatingly difficult
Similar Books
