Less L. Memorization Method (2012 Invention)

General Memory Chat
21

Hi all,

I have recently made a slight change or addition to my method. Before I explain it, I will present first a new way of memorizing cards using 5000 pegs (set up the way I have mentioned earlier, in locations containing 100pegs set on 10 grid-like walls). It is by working with this new method that I got the idea for the slight change to my method that I will be explaining later. (I’m not going to explain all the fine details of the 5000 peg method but only the working principle of it.)

This 5000 peg method can simply be called a Non-consecutive Less L. In the regular Less L. you go from loci 0 to loci 1 and then to loci 2, etc. where you simply stare and visualize the appropriate peg.

In Non-consecutive Less L. you must visualize two pegs per loci of 100. You must start with the high pegs 50-99 to visualize your first card and then you move to your lower pegs 00-49 for your second peg.

Now say that your second card is a 3 of spade. That would be peg 43 for me. So I’d simply visualize it and then, instead of going to the next loci, say I was in loci 5 and now instead of moving to loci 6, I would move to loci 43, where another set of 100 pegs await are present waiting for me. I go to that location because the last card is a 3 of spade, or 43. From that location, I would simply do the same thing again; hit a high peg for the first card and a low peg for the second card. Again, that second card would tell me which loci I’m going to next.

So far, this method has proven to be slightly slower than my regular or consecutive Less L. method. However I enjoy this method and from practicing it, I have found a new way of moving faster and more accurately to my desired loci.

So here it is, my new improvement to my regular or consecutive Less L. method:
Say, I’m in loci 34 and want to head next to loci 35. What I do is I think about the peg 3435 together with the peg 3535. With practice, this becomes like a link leading me quickly and accurately to the next loci. After doing my business in loci 35, I’ll be looking at peg 3536 and this peg is then tied to 3636 allowing me to jump quickly and accurately to that new loci.

Ultimately, I have found that it is good to think of peg numbers such as 2020, 1212, 2323 as entering points into a loci so that if I have to remember a peg for the number 1745, I may first head for peg 1717 to enter loci 17 and from there, it will be easy to find 1745. Obviously, with training, such step can become unnecessary but I feel that this is such a good way to train that I wanted to share it with everyone.

I have used this method in my latest personal best of 2:57 but only for the recall portion. For some reason that I do not understand, I tend to skip loci more in the recall portion of a memory challenge. I will acknowledge that my recall time was way beyond the 5 minute limit that is required in memory competitions.

SL

PS. The use of the room master image as mentioned in my last post can also be used to help find a loci quickly.

22

Here is another brand new memory technique, I think.
It’s the Less L. method but with links this time around.
It is superior to the regular link method because it is faster since there are fewer links to make. In the regular link method, you tie things together and each item is linked with a prior item and a following item. In Less L. with links, you only tie things once with another and that is all. I have improved on my best regular link method time fairly quickly and substantially only a few days after starting to practice this new method.
(Now before I start, I must warn you that this method requires a minimum of 1300 pegs to memorize a whole pack.) Here is how I have improved my personal best time (of the regular link method) with this Less L. with links method: Say my first card is a two of heart or 22 for me. I use peg #22 and link it to, say the second card is 4 of clubs or a 34 for me I add 50 to get peg #84, I then link peg 22 to 84. Now these two pegs will not be linked to any other peg. Say the next card is an ace of Diamond, 11(for me)+50=61. So I will use my peg #61 and link it to, say the fourth card is the 7 of spades or a 47 for me, I then link peg #61 to peg #147. A five of diamond follows? It will be peg # 115 and if a king of diamond follows, 05(for me)+50=55, I will link peg 115 to 155, etc.
Not having to link is made possible by knowing the order of all the pegs in a long series. Pegs never repeat themselves.
This method is also compatible with the Less L. system (to increase the carrying capacity of a limited number of pegs) and there are obviously other ways to use more pegs per slice of 100s than what I’m suggesting here (4 pegs per rooms, only 3 for the first room) Unfortunately, I have not yet tested these other methods and so I will make no other comment on them.
Here is what my best time was using the regular link method for a perfect half pack: 2:45min. Now, at my 7th attempt, I broke this time with a perfect half pack score of 2:20 min.
As far as the recall times for this method are concerned, I consider them excellent.

SL

23

I see what you are doing, but I don’t understand why you are not using a simple peg system; 1-52 for a single deck, or set as many pegs aside as you need for the number of decks you intend to memorise. It is just one link per card.

Am I being particularly dumb here and missing something obvious? It wouldn’t be the first time…

24

For those who are mathematically quick, it may be a viable system (but even then I’d doubt it).

However, for a deck of 52 cards, and each card representing 1 person doing 1 action, I can (a) set each card at 52 places in a journey (or at 52 places within my memory palace, without using links); or (b) link two cards (person + action) and use only 25 places in the journey/memory palace (still having to deal with ONLY 52 images, either a person or an action).

“…requires a minimum of 1300 pegs to memorize a whole pack”<i>?

Am I the only one who noticed that no explanation was given as to WHY a set of 1300 pegs would be preferable to a set of 52 or 25?
25

P.S. Your system requires thinking in numbers. Sooner or later you’ll hit the wall and won’t make your time any better, no matter how hard you try. This is because thinking in images is always faster than having to deal with arithmetic.

26

Hello all,

First, I came to the library’s computer this morning to write what I’m going to write now. I’ll think of answering Mukiness and BuddingProspects later.

I’m glad to report about the first concrete indication that my method has the potential to be just as speedy as anyone else’s.
Nightwalker, in the thread “Guessing Picked Cards- Post Your Times Here” has unveiled a brand new method to guessing picked cards. In essence, his method is the same as what I have suggested here namely linking 2 images together. This requires him to make 25 links if two cards are missing. He can do this in the 30 seconds range. Now my method would require him to make a similar number of links, 26, only one more, within a much greater field of pegs (1300). Since I think that it is possible to know a field of pegs of 1300# just as well as it is possible to know one of 52, I see no reason to think that top times cannot be achieve with the method that I have just suggested.

I had omited, in my first post on this Less l. with links method, to state that numbers can obviously be memorized in similar manner (by groups of 100s and not 50s which means that only 4 digits will be memorized by sets of 100s if you follow the method I have first suggested) and so now it has been said.

Now, I didn’t want to talk about ways to increase the number of links within a set of 100 pegs because I hadn’t done it, (and I still haven’t done it) but I’ve decided to say something about that now anyways. I’ll start by pasting here the example I gave previously and continuing from there.

“Say my first card is a two of heart or 22 for me. I use peg #22 and link it to, say the second card is 4 of clubs or a 34 for me I add 50 to get peg #84, I then link peg 22 to 84. Now these two pegs will not be linked to any other peg. Say the next card is an ace of Diamond, 11(for me)+50=61. So I will use my peg #61 and link it to, say the fourth card is the 7 of spades or a 47 for me, I then link peg #61 to peg #147. A five of diamond follows? It will be peg # 115 and if a king of diamond follows, 05(for me)+50=55, I will link peg 115 to 155, etc.”

After this, the link might be peg 101 (Queen of Diamonds) linked with 199 (9 of spades) then 188 (8 of clubs) linked with… Now this is where instead of going to the low 200s, you may decide to link it back to the low 00s say peg 13 (3 of diamond). Then you may continue with the high 00s and link with the high 150s. The important thing here is to both know the order in which you are going to make these links (so try to make is logical or systematic) and not to have any two links that are both originating and going to a same set of 50 pegs. For instance, it might also be practical to link a peg from say the low 100S to the low 1100s.

The two reasons why I have not attempted using this intensified peg use system is that I’m afraid it may somewhat make the recall take a bit longer and given the good number of pegs that I currently have, I see no reason to give it a try at the moment.

Finally, even though I have not yet attempted Nightwalker’s brand new method of guessing picked cards, I want to speculate as to why it worked so well as opposed to the slashing of the cards that did now work for him. In my opinion, this is because slashing a card is one action that memorizes one card whereas linking two cards in one action takes care of memorizing double that amount of cards with one stroke.
SL

27

Mukkiness, it is my turn to claim not to understand what you are saying. How can you, link an image representing a card only once with another image representing another card (the following card you get from the pack) and be able to do this 26 times to remember a whole deck if you are not using the technique that I have outlined? How are you going to tell which linked group of two cards came before or after the other group?

Thanks for your question as I think it helps to highlight the reason why the Less L. with links method must work the way that it does work.

SL

28

Hi BuddingProspects,

I would like to say that I’m sceptical of what you are saying here. Obviously I have a bias in favour of my method. If you could nevertheless document or support further your point of view, I would appreciate that. I vaguely remember having seen World Memory Champion Wang Feng on a video claiming that when he would see an ace of spades, he would change it in a 11. I remember clearly him mentioning that he chose a 1 to represent a spade because it was similarly pointed at the top. He also picked 40s for the diamonds because a diamond as four edges, etc. My point here is that he can reach top speeds and appears to be dealing with arithmetic.

SL

29

BuddingProspect,

I think that my reply to Mukkinese should help to answer your last question. In addition, I would like to repeat that In the Less L. systems of memorization, a journey or an empty palace where images or pegs are to be posted in a preset order, is not needed.
Whether the method of putting an image on a journey (which takes some visualization time and which serves to memorize only one card unless you do some more work on that image which again takes a little more time) is faster or slower than my method of linking two images (which always does take care of memorizing two cards) is an issue which has not been settled, in my opinion.

SL
30

[quote=simon L.]

Well I just use a basic peg system 1-52, one for each card, but you can link two cards to each peg I suppose, I’m not sure how that would speed things up.

To be honest I am not a competitor in speed memorisation techniques, so strategies to shave a second or two off times can, sometimes, seem a bit archaic and “voodoo” -like. I have nothing but admiration for such dedication, give me a list and I’m happy, but time me and I lose it.

31

Hi Mukkinese,

In your system, do you link a card image with a peg image, where the peg tells you only of the order of your linked card image? In my system, all the 1300 needed pegs are card images and they tell you also of the order in which the card comes (if you know the other peg image with which it is linked) and so each peg do two jobs.

Sometimes, changing memory technique causes pleasant and unexpected surprises. I used to do a similar exercise within a set of only 100 pegs, with no pegs telling you of the order of the cards but just linking alternatively low (0-49)and then high (50-99) within the set of 100 images and then back again linking with the low pegs. I would do this just to practice my linking and one of my loci of 100 pegs. Then I tried this method and ho boy! What a difference. I’m no longer exercising with my old method anymore!

SL

32

No, you’re wrong.

You say "Whether the method of putting an image on a journey (which takes some visualization time and which serves to memorize only one card unless you do some more work on that image which again takes a little more time)…<i>

I’ve put one image per card in one place along a journey. I’ve also put more than one card in a single place along a journey. If I KNOW a journey backwards and forwards, if I can SEE each and every place along that journey, then no time is lost, no matter if you place one or more than one card at each place.

As a matter of fact, I’ve used a journey for a poem and placed two LINES (each of which necessitates more than one image) at one location, so that I could cut the journey in half. Personally, I go for accuracy, not speed.

Speed depends on how often you practice a system, and how well you’ve adapted to a system. O’Brien, Bell, Hancock, Pridmore never used math, never had to add, subtract or multiply.

If YOUR system works for YOU, well, then who’s to criticize it? However, I’m positive that your mathematically based system will either never be taken up by anyone or won’t be used for a decent length of time by someone else. People may try it, but sooner or later they’ll understand that thinking in images is so much easier and faster than adding, multiplying, etc. YOU created the system, therefore it’s quite easy for YOU. But in the end, images will triumph over numbers.
33

Hi everyone,
I would like to introduce a new method, I think. I’ll call it the “Less L. Voodoo Transporter Room Memory Technique.” I have designed it as a way to cope with one of the difficulties involved with using the Less L. systems. It is meant to make the Less L. systems work better.
One of the two main challenges in Less L. systems is to get quickly and accurately from one location to the next. In my experience, the journey method does not present such a difficult challenge.
I have attempted a number of techniques (and even shared one on this thread earlier) but I think that this Less L. Voodoo Transporter Room Memory Technique is entirely satisfactory, unlike the others.
Here is how it works: Say I’m at my 1st loci, SkyDome and I have finished my business there and want to go to loci 2 then what I do is I move away from my center location at SkyDome where I can easily view my 100 images and jump over some fence, or go in a hidden hallway that I know about at that location. As soon as I reach this blind spot, StarTreck’s transporter room gets me safely and accurately to loci 2. Then at loci 2, after using the images there as needed, I move away from the center of that location to enter some blind point of the loci, and again, Scotty beams me to loci 3 accurately and quickly, etc. It may help at first to put some recognizable object belonging to the next loci into the blind spot (but certainly not one of the images or pegs belonging to that next location).

I think this method can be useful anytime you want to move to the next spot quickly in one’s traveling mind. This means it can be useful in remembering the names of streets that are ahead or moving between different successive journeys that are not aligned.

SL

37

Blimey! Simon, you must have an incredible mind, just trying to follow what you are doing makes me tired!

I prefer a list of numbered pegs to a journey, but that is just my preference. Your method seems to me to be very complicated.

In a loci system doesn’t each location simply lead to the next, like a numbered peg system leads from 1 to 2 to 3 etc.? Why the need for transporters and hidden areas?

I’m lost…

38

You’re either deliberately or accidentally confusing the issue. The pegs aren’t used in order to tell the “order” of the cards. They’re used to identify the cards.

To determine the order, all that’s required is either the journey method or the memory palace. And that’s why we’d need only

(a) 52 locations (journey or palace), or
(b) 26 locations (2 cards per location), or
(c) 13 locations (4 cards per location).

You say, “…journey (which takes some visualization time and which serves to memorize only one card unless you do some more work on that image which again takes a little more time)…”

Well, you’re wrong. All you have to do is practice visualizing journeys so that when you need one, you’ll have it automatically and clearly. This comes straight out of Dominic O’Brien’s book. Just take the time to walk outside and write down a journey. Then at home just practice seeing all the places. With enough time and practice, all your prepared journeys will be waiting for you to select them. And if you’ve practiced enough with cards, the image for that card will AUTOMATICALLY enter your mind, you won’t have to “do some more work on that image” as you say.

If you practice enough, you can set multiple cards in one location as easily as you can set only one. Of course this requires practice, but so does every system.

Even with more than one card at a single location, it’s quite easy to arrange them in such a way that you can SEE the order, you can SEE which of the 2 or 4 is first, second, etc.

So far, you haven’t yet explained why 1300 images are more efficient than 52, or 26, or 13.

39

You seem either to be confused about what pegs are and what they do, or making claims about them that aren’t justified.

A peg is simply something you use to hang an image on, or attach an image to. It has nothing to do with the “order” of the material. And there is NO RULE that says using pegs REQUIRES linking them.

In other words, the pegs aren’t used for telling you the order of the cards (or any other material, for that matter) as you seem to believe. That’s why I say you’re confused about the purpose of pegs.

(However, using the phonetic alphabet, you CAN hang material on pegs and be able to recall the order, or simply go to the various parts of the material out of order.)

With a memory palace or a journey, you CAN go through the material in order or out of order, that’s the beauty of either method. A person calls each card in the deck. You place each one at specific points in the palace or journey, and you can then KNOW the order of each individual card.

Whether you use the phonetic alphabet, or a memory palace, or a journey, all you need is 52 images (maximum) to remember the identity of the cards AND the order of their appearance. Or, you can reduce the number of places to 26 by placing 2 cards at the same spot (only with the palace/journey, not the alphabet).

Why would you use 100 loci for 52 cards? Why not simply 52 loci for 52 cards? Or 26? Each place in the palace, each place along a journey, is KNOWN to you also (and already) by number. If you want to know the 27th card, you fly, or jump, or rush to the 27th place immediately. You don’t have to create ways to get to the place, you just “will” yourself there, and you’re there in an instant. You KNOW that place #27 is in front of that supermarket on that particular journey, so you just “appear” there automatically.

40

I know that I might be slow, but I have a feeling Simon is pulling our collectives legs. “Voodoo-transporter”?

41

Am I the only person who’s noticed that Simon L. has TOTALLY REFUSED to explain why a “blind spot” or a “transporter” is necessary in order to get from one location (in a palace or journey) to another? Or why it’s preferable?

Everyone who uses palaces and journeys (here or people I personally know) simply WILLS himself/herself to a location. No going to blind spots, no using a transporter.

I need to get from location #1 to location # 20? Well, I just WILL MYSELF to BE THERE. I can be in the middle of location #1 and I don’t have to move away from that center before leaving it. I just AUTOMATICALLY GO to the location I need to go to. I’ve never met anyone who needed a blind spot or transporter.

I suppose he’ll say that he’s simply suggesting an alternative, something that might “help” others. OK, I get that. But if Lorayne, O’Brien, Bell, Hancock, and Pridmore (who all know about Star Trek) have never seen the need to “move away” from the center of a location to a “blind spot”, well, then who REALLY needs one? This doesn’t mean that those guys thought of everything. But the use of a “blind spot” seems as if that would have been thought of already by them.

This moving away from the “center of a location” to a “blind spot” seems to me to be complicating things, adding something that’s totally unnecessary. Especially since we can ALL simply WILL OURSELVES to move INSTANTLY from one location to another.

42

I think Simon is laughing at us who read this crap :slight_smile: With no offence, from the beginning i didn’t understand Less L method and I guess i dont want to understand it now. I don’t mean to be rude :slight_smile:

43

You may be right.