Merged Derren Brown - predicting lottery numbers

Humphreys said:
Is this not in some ways similar to what we complain about Uri Geller doing?
Click to expand...

I'd like to emphasis a part of my post earlier (though others have adequately pointed it out already).

Tapio said:
...who need exactly this kind of initial misdirection with the following explanation (linked to a grander view on things) to eventually get the 'ahaa' experience...
Click to expand...

So, if Geller would, after confusing his audience with his trickery (ha!), admit it to be trickery/showmanship/misdirection and use it as a basis to explain how we would be best to stay cautious towards what we perceive as the 'only' reality etc....now then I think he'd be on the same level. As it is...well...:nope:
 
And we have to remember that Geller's act was not and is not just about the tricks; for example he made claims that people could be healed by his powers - that is a completely different ballpark to magicians such as Copperfield and Brown.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
After the wrong horse wins her hand is in her coat pocket with the ticket. The camera cuts away to a head shot of her and Derren, back to the wider angle with her hand still in her pocket, back to the head shot. In the next wide angle she appears to be either putting her hand back into her pocket before withdrawing the ticket.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta-0kTUOygM&feature=related
around 3:40
Click to expand...
What are you suggesting, that Derren switched the tickets? That means he must have placed six bets for 4 grand each. I figure he just continued "the system", and attended the "last race" with as many of the remaining punters as it took to see a win. Given a six-horse race and a near-favourite punt (you'll recall the tipster stating "Any one of those four could win it." (which included the winner, at odds or circa 2.25:1)), it wouldn't take long to see a winner. Even it took half a dozen races to see a winner, 24 grand is small beer to pull off the stunt. Alternatively, of course, the subject bookie was in on the deal, and agreed only to take the bet post-post(!), in return for writing six slips, one of which Derren did, in fact, switch, and the producer reimbursing the bookie, plus a small return for his "cooperation". You'll notice also that they collect the winnings from a different Bookie from the one whom Derren apparently placed the bet with.
 
Tapio said:
So, if Geller would, after confusing his audience with his trickery (ha!), admit it to be trickery/showmanship/misdirection and use it as a basis to explain how we would be best to stay cautious towards what we perceive as the 'only' reality etc....now then I think he'd be on the same level. As it is...well...:nope:
Click to expand...
I think he'd be a whole lot less of a celebrity too, not to mention less wealthy. As it is ... well ... nope!
 
Southwind17 said:
What are you suggesting, that Derren switched the tickets? That means he must have placed six bets for 4 grand each. I figure he just continued "the system", and attended the "last race" with as many of the remaining punters as it took to see a win. Given a six-horse race and a near-favourite punt (you'll recall the tipster stating "Any one of those four could win it." (which included the winner, at odds or circa 2.25:1)), it wouldn't take long to see a winner. Even it took half a dozen races to see a winner, 24 grand is small beer to pull off the stunt. Alternatively, of course, the subject bookie was in on the deal, and agreed only to take the bet post-post(!), in return for writing six slips, one of which Derren did, in fact, switch, and the producer reimbursing the bookie, plus a small return for his "cooperation". You'll notice also that they collect the winnings from a different Bookie from the one whom Derren apparently placed the bet with.
Click to expand...


If the bookie were in on it and paid for his cooperation would that constitute using a stooge?
 
Southwind17 said:
What are you suggesting, that Derren switched the tickets? That means he must have placed six bets for 4 grand each. I figure he just continued "the system", and attended the "last race" with as many of the remaining punters as it took to see a win.
Click to expand...
He could have done. That might involve filming quite a few people at the racetrack with the implication that he filmed even more at the previous stages in order to get multiple 'winners'. I suppose he could have cut the number in half by giving each person a different ticket to the horse they think he's backed. That should give him odds of well over 50% of claiming victory at the first attempt.

I don't see any reason to involve the bookie unless Derren is bothered about 24 grands worth of production budget.

I don't see him bothering to film 6^3 people prior to going to the racetrack though. If it was me, I'd approach it more like the coin toss.
 
Last edited:
He claims to have sent predictions to 7776 people, filmed 216 people and taken one 'winner' to the track. To be safe, how many winners does he need to be able to take to the track? 3? That would mean sending predictions to 23328 people and filming 648 people. Production costs for this would be ridiculous, wouldn't they?
 
shuttly said:
He claims to have sent predictions to 7776 people, filmed 216 people and taken one 'winner' to the track. To be safe, how many winners does he need to be able to take to the track? 3? That would mean sending predictions to 23328 people and filming 648 people. Production costs for this would be ridiculous, wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

If i'm not mistaken, I believe they asked the participants to record their experiences by themselves, and send the footage in. Only when it got to the later stages, did they need to use proper film crews.
 
dbalsdon said:
If i'm not mistaken, I believe they asked the participants to record their experiences by themselves, and send the footage in. Only when it got to the later stages, did they need to use proper film crews.
Click to expand...
No fools them (unless they provided the recording equipment). What counts as the later stages though? Only once they picked a winner?
 
This is coming from memory so is probably wrong, but the first time the cameras were used, was when they brought the "final" 6 together. They then only needed to record 6 groups of 6, and then continue recording the 6 "winners" from each group.....
 
7776 is only 65, so there was only one person left after five races, not six, as I initially assumed. He didn't, therefore, film six possible outcomes to ensure a certainty (not that he could have been in six places around the same racetrack all at the same time! Actually ... no, let's not go there.)
I reckon a ticket for each horse with a careful switch after the result is the only possible solution, unless the bookie is actually in on it.
 
Darat said:
No, one states his powers are real outside the performance, the other doesn't.
Click to expand...

When does the performance end?

I would say that once the trick is over, it is over. if you address the audience afterwards and tell them you did it via psychic powers, then you've crossed the line into fraud.

Derren doesn't quite do this, but it still makes me uncomfortable when he addressess the audience after the trick and tells them they have been witness to amazing psychological tricks.

Also, there is a kind of code of honour amongst magicians not to outright lie about how tricks are done. For example, if a magician tells the audience before the trick that no camera trickery at all will be used, he should stick to his word. Otherwise, it's just cheap.

Derren is no Geller but he does do and say things that border on "not okay".

Either way, I like Derren, hate Uri, and accept that both are, in their own way, brilliant at what they do.
 
Last edited:
Humphreys said:
Derren doesn't quite do this, but it still makes me uncomfortable when he addressess the audience after the trick and tells them they have been witness to amazing psychological tricks.
Click to expand...

I understand completely, and to some extent agree with your whole post. However, what I find remarkable is how even though in some cases (Seance for example) he does keep repeating it all having no true paranormal/psychic base of any kind, during the act, people still go all the way in constructing an experience which they easily interpret as such.
 
Southwind17 said:
What are you suggesting, that Derren switched the tickets? That means he must have placed six bets for 4 grand each. You'll notice also that they collect the winnings from a different Bookie from the one whom Derren apparently placed the bet with.
Click to expand...

Are you watching a different program?

Derren places the £4k with "tote betting" - he collects the winnings from a "tote sport" stand which is the same company.

A note at the end credits states that every losing participant along the way was offered a full refund of any losing bets placed, which I'd guess would add up to more than £24k

I think he backed every horse and then switched the tickets for the final race. When the punter loses she is stunned and can easily be misdirected away from noticing Derren switching tickets which at the time she had in her coat pocket without holding onto it. If Derren simply picks the last winner correctly the shows climax is not nearly so good.

However he did it it's a great effect.

Still can't get my head around how he did the middle piece with the racing "experts" and the photos
 
Ambrosia said:
Are you watching a different program?

Derren places the £4k with "tote betting" - he collects the winnings from a "tote sport" stand which is the same company.
Click to expand...
I thought that might be the answer, so looked for "tote" signs, but didn't notice them.

Ambrosia said:
Still can't get my head around how he did the middle piece with the racing "experts" and the photos
Click to expand...
Me neither. To my mind every aspect of the stunt relies on the selected photos, so the selections must be "forced". Everything else "simply" falls into place after that. The only question is, then: How does he force the selections?

What gets me is given these stunts are so common place, and usually just variations on a theme, how come the explanations remain a secret? Seems implausible in this day and age.
 
Southwind17 said:
Me neither. To my mind every aspect of the stunt relies on the selected photos, so the selections must be "forced". Everything else "simply" falls into place after that. The only question is, then: How does he force the selections?
Click to expand...

I'd guess that it has something to do with the initials of the people choosing. He must force those photos somehow, and then by extension force the order they stand in, which kind of falls into place after they choose where the pics are located, he also has to force the brown envelopes they chose as well, which I'd guess is the easiest of the 3 to do.

I have a couple of ideas - but I'm basically still stumped.
 
He's going to select the balls. We are going to find out what the BBC says the numbers were. He is then going to show us what the balls were that he chose.
 
Hilarious midirection from Derren here - "we had a meeting with Camelot (company that runs the lottery) and for legal reasons the BBC has to announce the numbers first, so I've put them on these balls here which we'll look at after the numbers are announced..."

Yeah, it's illegal to say what you think the lottery numbers will be ahead of time...
 
Well. He got all 6 right. Now just gotta wait till Friday to get his explanation for it.

ETA: I'm gonna guess the stand that the balls were on, is/was rigged though
 
Last edited:
Unless there is some techie trick to put the numbers on the balls, or he's rigged the BBC footage in some way, I can't see how he's done it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom