Merged Derren Brown - predicting lottery numbers

[Kiosk]

Well there was a hitch, the ball being placed higher doesnt leave room for much doubt

Well OK, maybe I didn't mean the slightest technical hitch. I was thinking more of the camera not being properly aligned, or the overlaid picture suddenly cutting out to reveal some guy in a T-shirt changing the balls. I reckon Derren would be forgiven if he were caught out on live TV switching an envelope or something - just - but a really spectacular disaster like that would finish him, and it wouldn't even have been his fault. Presumably there'd be some kind of computerised whatchamacallit making sure that didn't happen.

Ill be disappointed if he gives another explanation.

Prepare to be disappointed. If you've seen some of his other "OK, let me show you how this is done" routines, you'll know that they rarely bear much resemblance to reality. "I implanted the words 'Daily Mail' into your minds, subliminally, throughout the show", etc. (that one after he'd just pulled off the latest reworking of a trick he's been doing for half his career, presented with such brilliant, hysterical flamboyance that anyone who didn't spot the tell-tale signs would think it was brand new, rather than 100+ years old).

 

[firecoins]

he phoned the mob and they set it up.

 

[Ralfy]

Derren didn't win the lottery. We can be sure he or someone else didn't use the numbers earlier in the day as no-one matched all 6 last night.

From the official National Lottery website:

 

[StanBearclaw]

I imagine the intro was pre-taped, including the shot from the camera at the back of the studio. That established that the main camera was a hand-held camera operator who would give the picture a convincing wobble. When they cut back to the first camera, it started rolling live footage, but now it was being shot on a stationary camera, and the "wobble" was added artificially.

They could have started the masking at any moment after Derren walked over to the TV. The stagehand moved into place to select the correct balls as they were being read, and had plenty of time to place them in ascending order and skedaddle. There was a full 24 seconds between when the 6th ball was announced and when Derren began to walk over to the stand. I don't think it could get any more foolproof than that.

db2431, I think you nailed it!

 

[Lothian]

Possible explanation: Photosensitive coating on the balls? Project the numbers as soon as they're announced then turn the stand round?

That would be a lame way of doing it... not mentalism at all.

I don't care how he did it. By that I mean I will not be disappointed if it turns out to be simple. There is no such thing as magic. Every trick is a trick. Derren in an entertainer. I thought the effect was great and I was entertained.

 

[Ralfy]

More evidence that the camera wobble is an effect added during broadcast is that the zoom in to Derren at the end is perfectly steady, where you would expect this to be the most wobbly bit of footage of all, if the camera is handheld.

Also I read elsewhere that the split screen effect could have been achieved by simply freezing the left hand side after Derren walks to the TV and unfreezing once the correct balls have been put in place. Is this possible using software such as After Effects?

 

[Darat]

I don't care how he did it. By that I mean I will not be disappointed if it turns out to be simple. There is no such thing as magic. Every trick is a trick. Derren in an entertainer. I thought the effect was great and I was entertained.

That's the key point isn't it? He's got folk here interested in it, his own blog seems to be down because of the interest - looks like he's doing his job very well - he got everyone watching!

And I think he did it with trained ants, that's why he had to delay moving to the balls so they could all into get into position.

 

[Ashles]

The split screen also seems likely (hardly 'easy' as some have described it) but probably a good chance it was that.

If it was split screen it was amazingly well done.

I have one other theory but need to check the video first...

 

[microdot]

Guess we'll have to wait until Friday to find out

 

[Pup]

And I think he did it with trained ants, that's why he had to delay moving to the balls so they could all into get into position.

That's it! He's going to tell us he spent a year of his life training those ants.

When we all know that what he really did was have an assistant quickly paint sugar water on the balls while the split screen masking was in effect, and the ants just lined up along the sugar water.

 

[Lothian]

Feel free to specualte in this thread

 

[Kuko 4000]

I'm with Darat and others. It just seems to me that most people who are let down because of a "simple" explanation are not familiar enough with the world of magic. It's all about the dressing, as Derren himself has so beautifully and effectively demonstrated over the last years.

On the explanation part, I expect Derren to brief the viewers about the history of numerology or some other BS, making sure to remind everyone that it doesn't work, but that he has found this very time consuming and complicated mathematical pattern that allows him to know the correct numbers after analysing the national lottery, every day, for the last year or so.

Then he goes on to show the correlation of the numbers yesterday and the numbers from the previous drawings, everyone is amazed and the numerologists feel vindicated after all, until Derren once again smacks their head in with a hammer, when he gives a hint on how it was really done with two Derrens talking side by side in the same picture.

 

[shuttlt]

I'm with Darat and others. It just seems to me that most people who are let down because of a "simple" explanation are not familiar enough with the world of magic. It's all about the dressing, as Derren himself has so beautifully and effectively demonstrated over the last years.

I'm not sure it's a question of being disappointed that the explanation is simple (if indeed we've worked it out). The method for predicting the horse race is simple, but elegant. There are certainly other aspects of his performance to admire, he's a showman, no question. For the racing prediction, or Pen and Teller making objects appear under clear plastic cups the tricks remain impressive even when I know how they were done.

Maybe it's also a nagging feeling that there must be a better way to pull of the trick that doesn't rely on camera trickery. Not that I know of, or could do any such thing. Maybe this has a lot to do with Derren's act being about getting you to believe such things are possible if you're as clever as him.

 

[Crundy]

I also think the camera wobble is artificial, because if you watch when the camera moves significantly the perspective of the objects doesn't change (e.g. everything looks 2D).

 

[Southwind17]

I don't care how he did it. By that I mean I will not be disappointed if it turns out to be simple. There is no such thing as magic. Every trick is a trick. Geller is an entertainer. I thought the effect was great and I was entertained.

That's the key point isn't it? He's got folk here interested in it, his own blog seems to be down because of the interest - looks like he's doing his job very well - he got everyone watching!

I've changed just one word in one of the quotes above (oh, and one other, just for correction). I wonder whether, given the change, you would both maintain your statements.

 

[Darat]

I'm not sure it's a question of being disappointed that the explanation is simple (if indeed we've worked it out). The method for predicting the horse race is simple, but elegant. There are certainly other aspects of his performance to admire, he's a showman, no question. For the racing prediction, or Pen and Teller making objects appear under clear plastic cups the tricks remain impressive even when I know how they were done.

I can sort of understand the "disappointment" if it turns out to something as apparently straightforward as a split-screen, but that's only after the fact, when I watched it the reaction I had was "How the hell did he do that?!", so I got the entertainment I like from a magic trick.

I think it's a bit like when I saw one of those "magicians' secrets revealed" shows and the woman in the box with the swords through it was revealed to be simply a matter of there being enough room in the box! But since then I've seen the trick done by a much better magician and it was still entertaining but in a different way - I was looking at the angles the swords went in and so on.

 

[Darat]

I've changed just one word in one of the quotes above (oh, and one other, just for correction). I wonder whether, given the change, you would both maintain your statements.

No - as I explained in my previous posts - one says he is an entertainer the other claims he is real and makes claims outside his performance e.g. he can heal people with his powers - it really is like comparing apples and pears. One is a magician, the other claims he has magic powers, the two things are not the same so I don't even know why people keep trying to compare the claims made by Geller and Brown.

 

[shuttlt]

I think it's a bit like when I saw one of those "magicians' secrets revealed" shows and the woman in the box with the swords through it was revealed to be simply a matter of there being enough room in the box! But since then I've seen the trick done by a much better magician and it was still entertaining but in a different way - I was looking at the angles the swords went in and so on.

At least then they are working with optical illusions, cognitive biases etc. The box is sitting right there in front of you actual size and they have to fool you. If they can pull it off, I find it much more impressive than if they used some kind of digital image manipulation to make the box appear smaller. Some tricks like the lottery one it may be a choice between doing it in Photoshop and not doing it at all, in which case fine, but it's still a defect.

 

[Darat]

At least then they are working with optical illusions, cognitive biases etc. The box is sitting right there in front of you actual size and they have to fool you. If they can pull it off, I find it much more impressive than if they used some kind of digital image manipulation to make the box appear smaller. Some tricks like the lottery one it may be a choice between doing it in Photoshop and not doing it at all, in which case fine, but it's still a defect.

This is were I think we have a disconnect, let me try it this way:

Did you enjoy his show?

 

[shuttlt]

This is were I think we have a disconnect, let me try it this way:

Did you enjoy his show?

Certainly, like I say there are admirable things about his performance. It was a success, I'm not claiming otherwise. If you strip out the performance though, I don't like the trick (if we have it right). Surely some tricks are more elegant than others irrespective of the merits of the performance? Maybe I've been spoiled by Penn and Teller and the cups.