# Derren Brown: The Event Live (Wed. 9th on C4)



## T & P (Sep 7, 2009)

Anyone else really looking forward to this? It probably will turn out to be overhyped bollocks, but it sounds intriguing.

No details have been released and it is only 10 minutes long, but it is believed audience participation (including those watching at home) will be a key feature. Rumours are rife on the webs that the trick will involve immobilising viewers... 

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/a174985/derren-brown-will-immobilise-viewers.html

Who've got some gossip or theories on this then?


----------



## weltweit (Sep 7, 2009)

Don't you mean "Derren"?


----------



## lizzieloo (Sep 7, 2009)

T & P said:


> Anyone else really looking forward to this? It probably will turn out to be overhyped bollocks, but it sounds intriguing.
> 
> No details have been released and it is only 10 minutes long, but it is believed audience participation (including those watching at home) will be a key feature. Rumours are rife on the webs that the trick will involve immobilising viewers...
> 
> ...



That sounds a bit scary i doesn't sit well somehow


----------



## maldwyn (Sep 7, 2009)

Wednesday is 09/09/09, do you think he'll mention it?


----------



## T & P (Sep 7, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Don't you mean "Derren"?


 I do indeed . I'll change it.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 7, 2009)

He is quite a clever chappie, I recall watching him play chess against a circle of grand masters, he said he could not be expected as a novice to beat any of them, he beat something like 8/11 of them and then explained how he did it. Twas quite clever.


----------



## ska invita (Sep 7, 2009)

weltweit said:


> He is quite a clever chappie, I recall watching him play chess against a circle of grand masters, he said he could not be expected as a novice to beat any of them, he beat something like 8/11 of them and then explained how he did it. Twas quite clever.



it went something like he would make the move that the grandmaster a step before had just made, so in effect the grandmasters were playing themselves, and derren just moved the pieces (if that makes sense). I think he had to make the opening move for it to work...or not, cant remember

i like his shows, but i dont approve of the hypnotism involved in 80% of his tricks - its pretty dangerous for those involved, and can lead to long term repercussions.


----------



## Mitre10 (Sep 7, 2009)

www.itwillbeyou.info


----------



## fogbat (Sep 7, 2009)

ska invita said:


> it went something like he would make the move that the grandmaster a step before had just made, so in effect the grandmasters were playing themselves, and derren just moved the pieces (if that makes sense). I think he had to make the opening move for it to work...or not, cant remember
> .



Yep - it's a fairly well known trick. 

Of course, he added a twist so he'd apparently predicted how many pieces would be left on each board (or something similar) for each game


----------



## fogbat (Sep 7, 2009)

Mitre10 said:


> www.itwillbeyou.info



The 11th of September?

*The 11th of September?*

Ohhh Brown. You sick bastard


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 7, 2009)

What time is it on? 

There's a crucial England match on the other side


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 7, 2009)

I can't be arsed with all this anymore.


----------



## T & P (Sep 7, 2009)

fogbat said:


> The 11th of September?
> 
> *The 11th of September?*
> 
> Ohhh Brown. You sick bastard


 Has Johnny Cannuck seen this?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 7, 2009)

'Immobilize viewers'?

Do you think he's a supervillain?

Wednesday is the next lottery draw...

in fact i was just watching The Wright Stuff and there was mention of there, before they got into the papers, of a headline of a 'mindbender' who thinks he can predict Wednesday's lottery numbers. The Event (please remain indoors) seems to have a big lotto kind of vibe to it.

Perhaps it could be all of us - brainwashed to serve Derren Brown and his new insect overlords.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 7, 2009)

I suspect the 11th isn't because of the obvious but for some other purpose, perhaps a lottery number he wants us to pick?

But I wonder how can he guarantee the numbers will come out in his favour on the draw?


----------



## g force (Sep 7, 2009)

5t3IIa said:


> I can't be arsed with all this anymore.



Pretty much my feeling. First time I thought it was interesting....like getting the guy on the tube to forget what stop he wanted...now it's pretty dull


----------



## T & P (Sep 7, 2009)

Of course, in the extremely unlikely event that he managed to guess the right numbers the whole exercise would be a massive let down, seeing as there would be far more people getting 5 and 6 numbers right and having to share the prizes.

So you might be jumping for joy thinking you're bagged £1,500 for five numbers when it might turn out to be more like £50.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 7, 2009)

T & P said:


> Of course, in the extremely unlikely event that he managed to guess the right numbers the whole exercise would be a massive let down, seeing as there would be far more people getting 5 and 6 numbers right and having to share the prizes.
> 
> So you might be jumping for joy thinking you're bagged £1,500 for five numbers when it might turn out to be more like £50.



I'm curious what he's going to do, so I'll still be watching.

And £50 is still £50


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 7, 2009)

What time is it on?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 7, 2009)

I don't care if I've seen it all before, I love his stuff. Except the Russian roulette one which was just crap. I read his book and it shows you how he's pretty much lifted all his techniques from other people but that's still no easy task and he's a brilliant showman with it. 

And the horse racing one was a load of rubbish too.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 7, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't care if I've seen it all before, I love his stuff. Except the Russian roulette one which was just crap. I read his book and it shows you how he's pretty much lifted all his techniques from other people but that's still no easy task and he's a brilliant showman with it.
> 
> And the horse racing one was a load of rubbish too.


 

Russian Roulette was boring.

I went to see him on stage.  Some of his tricks were quite long and drawn out


----------



## 5t3IIa (Sep 7, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't care if I've seen it all before, I love his stuff. Except the Russian roulette one which was just crap. I read his book and it shows you how he's pretty much lifted all his techniques from other people but that's still no easy task and he's a brilliant showman with it.
> 
> *And the horse racing one *was a load of rubbish too.



Was that the one where he just _told_ the counter staff that his horse had won? That was brill! Like g-froce says ^ the tube one was great too. 

I find the long drawn out ones are a bit dull now.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 7, 2009)

He's going to predict the lottery result as it happens


----------



## STFC (Sep 7, 2009)

The adverts on C4 over the past few weeks have intrigued me, I'm sure there is some subliminal messaging going on there.

This URL appears on posters in the adverts: http://www.stucktomysofa.com/, so immobilising viewers sounds like it could be right.

I'll be at Wembley though, so I'll have to read all about it later.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 7, 2009)

he's either engaged in a year long exercise of reading the lottery results and trying to figure probabilities, or it's misdirection.

Either way £49 for nowt is better than nowt.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 7, 2009)

I reckon it'll be something to do with time..... considering the ad goes backward


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 7, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> he's either engaged in a year long exercise of reading the lottery results and trying to figure probabilities, or it's misdirection.



It's probably that theres a 2 minute delay in the live lottery results.

And they'll be no delay in Derrens program, that'll give him (and his cronies) 2 minutes to make it look like they're predicting the numbers


----------



## fogbat (Sep 7, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> It's probably that theres a 2 minute delay in the live lottery results.
> 
> And they'll be no delay in Derrens program, that'll give him (and his cronies) 2 minutes to make it look like they're predicting the numbers



He's listed five of the six numbers already.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 7, 2009)

fogbat said:


> He's listed five of the six numbers already.





where?


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 7, 2009)

his blog is saying he will do it live on Wednesday, and he will try and guess 5 of the 6 balls correctly


----------



## fogbat (Sep 7, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> where?



Was going to say here:

http://www.itwillbeyou.info/

But I suspect that may be some chancer trying to make some sweet, sweet advertising revenue off the back of Derren Brown's latest trick.

e2a: Three of the numbers on that page do match ones shown on a lamppost in his video here


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 7, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Was going to say here:
> 
> http://www.itwillbeyou.info/
> 
> ...


so that site is nothing to do with the show at all?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 7, 2009)

The lottery ball numbers are on the lamppost in the TV advert.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 7, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> so that site is nothing to do with the show at all?



It was linked earlier on this thread. To begin with, I thought it was an official one - it was the first of the sites listed that I looked at.

But the whois data doesn't match the other two, and it has a load of google ads, which the other two (retsehcnamdetinu.com and stucktomysofa.com) don't.

I think chancer.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 7, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> The lottery ball numbers are on the lamppost in the TV advert.


are they the same as this website? would it mean anything if they were (hard to doubt if Brown is concerned, that ad seems positively full of meaning...or misdirection).


----------



## fogbat (Sep 7, 2009)

The URL of the suspect site is "itwillbeyou.info". The bus in the ad has "itwillbeyou" written on it, and there are numbers on the lamppost (which are the same on said site).

It'd be easy enough for someone to watch the ad, then knock up the itwillbeyou site independently of Brown's team.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 7, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> are they the same as this website? would it mean anything if they were (hard to doubt if Brown is concerned, that ad seems positively full of meaning...or misdirection).



No, they are not the same.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 7, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> No, they are not the same.



Are you sure? At least three of them matched.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 7, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> are they the same as this website? would it mean anything if they were (hard to doubt if Brown is concerned, that ad seems positively full of meaning...or misdirection).



Oh no hang on wait, they are the same numbers.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 7, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Are you sure? At least three of them matched.


Seem the same to me; hard to tell with the video quality on youtube. Not sure about the number 10. But i'd give it the benefit of the doubt. Obviously a fake site could put up those numbers easily, but that ad is intended to mean something so i doubt he picked those numbers by chance. Not sure what though.


----------



## Corax (Sep 7, 2009)

Thanks for the interest guys.

None of them will be a square root.


----------



## T & P (Sep 7, 2009)

So the question is, how many of us are going to end up putting a quid on the lottery on Wednesday "just in case"?


----------



## fogbat (Sep 7, 2009)

T & P said:


> So the question is, how many of us are going to end up putting a quid on the lottery on Wednesday "just in case"?



I'll be buying 49 tickets 

We've got five of the numbers, this way I'm guaranteed to get all six


----------



## maomao (Sep 7, 2009)

How many tickets would you have to buy to ensure you had at least one with five correct numbers on it?


----------



## maomao (Sep 7, 2009)

Aha, the chance is 1 in 55,491.33333. So he'd have to spend 55,492 quid. Well within his production budget I would have thought (especially as he'd get a proportion of the money back, what with all the 4x and the tenners as well).


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> Aha, the chance is 1 in 55,491.33333. So he'd have to spend 55,492 quid. Well within his production budget I would have thought (especially as he'd get a proportion of the money back, what with all the 4x and the tenners as well).



I am sure the logistics of filing in 55,491 slips and getting them printed at the Lottery counter at Tesco, would put pay to the idea?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 7, 2009)

T & P said:


> So the question is, how many of us are going to end up putting a quid on the lottery on Wednesday "just in case"?


I think I will. I don't mind a punt to see what's involved. Of course there's no way he can know in advance what the numbers are so I'm curious as to the real trick.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 7, 2009)

Some more info here:

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/5005322.article



> Derren Brown will try to predict the lottery results, control the nation through subliminal messages and take down a casino in his forthcoming series of Channel 4 specials.
> 
> The illusionist will go head-to-head with the BBC’s National Lottery draw on Wednesday night with a 10-minute live show in which he tries to predict at least five of the six balls.
> 
> ...


----------



## elevendayempire (Sep 7, 2009)

I'll go for it, why not? It's only a quid.  So what're the numbers?


----------



## rikwakefield (Sep 7, 2009)

I used to love Derren Brown but his last few stunts have left me feeling a bit cold. I hope these ones change my opinion though.


----------



## 8den (Sep 7, 2009)

That Mitchell and Webb look had a post apocalyptic gameshow who's catchphrase was "DO NOT THINK OF THE EVENT!"

Can Darren Brown create a trick that brings about the end of civilisation?


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 7, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> I am sure the logistics of filing in 55,491 slips and getting them printed at the Lottery counter at Tesco, would put pay to the idea?



why?


----------



## ebay sex moomin (Sep 7, 2009)

cos the guy standing behind you trying buy some milk and fags would lamp you!

e2a- link to the clip of Derren simultaneously beating 9 chessmasters, which was mentioned earlier in the thread, here


----------



## maomao (Sep 7, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> I am sure the logistics of filing in 55,491 slips and getting them printed at the Lottery counter at Tesco, would put pay to the idea?



2 or 3 runners at a tv company could get this done in a day or two. The hard bit would be working out the spread of numbers.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 7, 2009)

6 people, say and 60,000 slips
1 person does 10,000 slips

How long does each slip take? At least 10 seconds, surely.  That's about 28 hours.


----------



## rikwakefield (Sep 7, 2009)

fogbat said:


> I'll be buying 49 tickets
> 
> We've got five of the numbers, this way I'm guaranteed to get all six



Wanna buy some magic beans?


----------



## paolo (Sep 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> 2 or 3 runners at a tv company could get this done in a day or two. The hard bit would be working out the spread of numbers.



Even easier than that. Get a load of blank forms, a printer which will handle custom paper sizes, then laser them.


----------



## T & P (Sep 7, 2009)

So we know the trick will be to predict the lottery numbers. 

However I'm not so sure if that website that posted earlier on this thread that publishes the numbers is officially related to Brown, or some chancer. 

In other words, do we know the 'official' numbers he will try to predict, or is he keeping mum about it?


----------



## maomao (Sep 7, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Even easier than that. Get a load of blank forms, a printer which will handle custom paper sizes, then laser them.



Then you'd have to get them to the newsagents. Would be quicker on the internet.


----------



## rikwakefield (Sep 7, 2009)

T & P said:


> So we know the trick will be to predict the lottery numbers.
> 
> However I'm not so sure if that website that posted earlier on this thread that publishes the numbers is officially related to Brown, or some chancer.
> 
> In other words, do we know the 'official' numbers he will try to predict, or is he keeping mum about it?



It's a chancer's website. The google ads give it away.


----------



## ebay sex moomin (Sep 7, 2009)

SpookyFrank said:


> I don't care if I've seen it all before, I love his stuff. Except the Russian roulette one which was just crap.


really? I missed it at the time as I didn't own a telly, but I've watched the last ten minutes about ten times in the last ten months. Even though he clearly survived, and there was probably no way he could have actually killed himself- it's a trick after all- it still makes for very tense viewing. For me at least. 



> And the horse racing one was a load of rubbish too.


He was kind of demonstrating a point with that one (The System)- showing how 'magical thinking' works- kind of like a pre-emptive strike against Deal or no Deal. I admit it wasn't his most gripping special...

Anyway, I for one will be stuck to my sofa at 10.35 on wednesday (09.09.09 numerology fans!) for the ten minute series teaser


----------



## maomao (Sep 7, 2009)

ebay sex moomin said:


> He was kind of demonstrating a point with that one (The System)- showing how 'magical thinking' works- kind of like a pre-emptive strike against Deal or no Deal. I admit it wasn't his most gripping special...



I thought the horse racing one was the best of the lot. Shed a tear at the end when he showed her that she did have the winning betting slip.


----------



## T & P (Sep 7, 2009)

ebay sex moomin said:


> really? I missed it at the time as I didn't own a telly, but I've watched the last ten minutes about ten times in the last ten months. Even though he clearly survived, and there was probably no way he could have actually killed himself- it's a trick after all- it still makes for very tense viewing. For me at least.


 He claimed at the time that blank bullets can actually seriously injure or kill somebody if the gun is placed right against the head, due to the exploding gases exiting the barrel.


----------



## ebay sex moomin (Sep 7, 2009)

maomao said:


> I thought the horse racing one was the best of the lot. Shed a tear at the end when he showed her that she did have the winning betting slip.


 

my favourite special is probably 'Messiah', where he de-bunks psychics, dream-readers and other charlatans...


----------



## maomao (Sep 7, 2009)

T & P said:


> He claimed at the time that blank bullets can actually seriously injure or kill somebody if the gun is placed right against the head, due to the exploding gases exiting the barrel.



From wiki on blank cartridges



> The appearance of a blank cartridge is deceptively harmless and can give a false sense of safety. Although blank cartridges do not contain a bullet, precautions are still required because fatalities and severe injuries have resulted on occasions when blank cartridges have been fired at very close ranges.
> 
> Blank cartridges frequently contain a paper or plastic plug which seals the powder in the case called a wad. This wad can cause bruising at medium ranges and severe penetrating wounds at close range. There is also a cloud of hot, expanding gas which is expelled at extremely high velocity from the muzzle when a blank cartridge is fired. These high velocity gases can inflict severe injuries (see powerhead for an example) at close ranges. Additionally, if there is any small debris lodged inside the barrel it will be expelled at a similar velocity to a bullet, with the ability to inflict a severe wound. Finally, the extremely loud noise of blanks being fired can damage the hearing of people in the immediate area.
> 
> In general, such incidents occur when blank cartridges are fired by people who are unaware of their destructive capabilities. Actors in particular are at serious risk of injury from blank cartridges used on movie sets. Brandon Lee and Jon-Erik Hexum were both killed in accidents involving blank cartridges. Lee was killed because the gun had earlier experienced a squib load, in which a bullet had been left in the barrel, unknown to those on hand. It was propelled when the gun was loaded with blanks for the scene being shot. As reported in the investigation and court records, when Blank Ammo was loaded into the gun by someone other than the firearms expert the first shot was destined to fire the bullet out of the barrel.[citation needed] Hexum was killed when he placed a blank-loaded gun to his head and pulled the trigger- he did not realize the blanks had sufficient force to push the wad from the blank through his skull, sending bone fragments deep into his brain.


----------



## rikwakefield (Sep 7, 2009)

ebay sex moomin said:


> my favourite special is probably 'Messiah', where he de-bunks psychics, dream-readers and other charlatans...



His work in debunking these cunts is his greatest IMO.


----------



## Corax (Sep 7, 2009)

As Goldacre is to Nutritionists, so Brown is to Mediums.


----------



## ebay sex moomin (Sep 7, 2009)

T & P said:


> He claimed at the time that blank bullets can actually seriously injure or kill somebody if the gun is placed right against the head, due to the exploding gases exiting the barrel.


This is true. He did claim that at the time, and they can.

However, it's theatre isn't it? I don't know how he did it, but I feel certain that he reduced his chances of dying to zero before he went ahead.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 7, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> where?





Mitre10 said:


> www.itwillbeyou.info


There.


----------



## rikwakefield (Sep 7, 2009)

People are biting this whole "winning the lottery" thing, which is funny because Derren has tried at length to convince us that these type of scams are just that..... scams.


----------



## ebay sex moomin (Sep 7, 2009)

Oh, I don't know about that. I win the Spanish lottery almost every day.

Never even bought a ticket


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 8, 2009)

rikwakefield said:


> People are biting this whole "winning the lottery" thing, which is funny because Derren has tried at length to convince us that these type of scams are just that..... scams.



My thoughts exactly. How many times has he told viewers that this sort of thing is impossible. I reckon this will be something along the lines of the 'ten heads in a row' trick, where he filmed all day to get it to work.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 8, 2009)

misdirection misdirection misdirection - i wonder what he'll really do


----------



## T & P (Sep 8, 2009)

If he predicts the wrong numbers he will end up with massive, potentially career-ending egg on his face, so I guess he's got something up his sleeve.

Naturally nobody can actually 'predict' anything and it will be some kind of trick, but still it'll be interesting to see what.

I'm more looking forward to the audience participation event (I think on Friday), though it could simply boil down to the power of suggestion and willing minds. At the end of the day I know people who have been audiences at magic shows and they claim they've been mass hypnotised or controlled by the magician, so I guess the principle also applies to TV audiences.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

rikwakefield said:


> People are biting this whole "winning the lottery" thing, which is funny because Derren has tried at length to convince us that these type of scams are just that..... scams.


...by way of using them in his act.


----------



## STFC (Sep 9, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> misdirection misdirection misdirection - i wonder what he'll really do



Misdirection is the key word. He's not going to predict the winning numbers, obviously. I think that through his subliminal messaging (did anyone see the 'perfume' ad with the models in it on C4 last night? There were five numbers in it) he has directed large numbers of people to choose certain numbers, but to what end I don't know. I think it will be impressive though.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

What good will that do? 

i bought my lottery ticket just in case DB really is psychic and is mentally assumed control of the lottery machinery like the guy in Scanners.


----------



## elevendayempire (Sep 9, 2009)

Yes, but _what are the bloody numbers_?


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Yes, but _what are the bloody numbers_?



we can't tell you


it will make the amount we win smaller


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 9, 2009)

T & P said:


> He claimed at the time that blank bullets can actually seriously injure or kill somebody if the gun is placed right against the head, due to the exploding gases exiting the barrel.



True.  Famously* an actor called John Eric Hexum did just this. He was mucking about with a gun loaded with blanks on the set of a programme called Cover Up.  He said something about if they were real instead of blank and shot himself in the head and dieded. 






*Famously if you had a crush on his cover up character in the 80s.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> *Famously if you had a crush on his cover up character in the 80s.



a crush?

was he 15 and did he bite his lip alot?


----------



## STFC (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> What good will that do?
> 
> i bought my lottery ticket just in case DB really is psychic and is mentally assumed control of the lottery machinery like the guy in Scanners.



Dunno. Maybe to trick people into believing they've won, after subliminally influencing them into picking those five numbers.


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> What good will that do?
> 
> i bought my lottery ticket just in case DB really is psychic and is mentally assumed control of the lottery machinery *like the guy in Scanners*.



Now if he started blowing heads up, then I might take an interest


----------



## g force (Sep 9, 2009)

The Octagon said:


> Now if he started blowing heads up, then I might take an interest



If he blows his own head up I'll be even happier


----------



## Balbi (Sep 9, 2009)

With the football on the other side, those who tune in to watch will be those who really want to tune in and watch - DB fans and people who might be more suggestible to the DB subconscious imagery and that. So he'll naturally have a larger proportion than normal of his audience who will be 'affected' by the program, because they _want_ to be.

I think DB's a bit of a knobber personally, if I had his 'abilities' i'd be running the fucking planet with Dave Icke and the lizardmen by now.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

Balbi said:


> With the football on the other side, those who tune in to watch will be those who really want to tune in and watch - DB fans and people who might be more suggestible to the DB subconscious imagery and that. So he'll naturally have a larger proportion than normal of his audience who will be 'affected' by the program, because they _want_ to be.
> 
> I think DB's a bit of a knobber personally, if I had his 'abilities' i'd be running the fucking planet with Dave Icke and the lizardmen by now.



Sky+ innit


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 9, 2009)

Balbi said:


> With the football on the other side, those who tune in to watch will be those who really want to tune in and watch - DB fans and people who might be more suggestible to the DB subconscious imagery and that. So he'll naturally have a larger proportion than normal of his audience who will be 'affected' by the program, because they _want_ to be.
> 
> I think DB's a bit of a knobber personally, if I had his 'abilities' i'd be running the fucking planet with Dave Icke and the lizardmen by now.



Or maybe people who don't like football who can spare 10 minutes to have their curiosity satisfied?


----------



## T & P (Sep 9, 2009)

Balbi said:


> With the football on the other side, those who tune in to watch will be those who really want to tune in and watch - DB fans and people who might be more suggestible to the DB subconscious imagery and that. So he'll naturally have a larger proportion than normal of his audience who will be 'affected' by the program, because they _want_ to be.
> 
> I think DB's a bit of a knobber personally, if I had his 'abilities' i'd be running the fucking planet with Dave Icke and the lizardmen by now.



I'd certainly be down at the races every single day, if I could do what he did on that programme...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 9, 2009)

Balbi said:


> With the football on the other side, those who tune in to watch will be those who really want to tune in and watch - DB fans and people who might be more suggestible to the DB subconscious imagery and that. So he'll naturally have a larger proportion than normal of his audience who will be 'affected' by the program, because they _want_ to be.


 Football kicks off at 20:00, Derren is on at 22:35; fella ain't no fool


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 9, 2009)

T & P said:


> I'd certainly be down at the races every single day, if I could do what he did on that programme...


 He's insinuated on a number of occaissions that this is what he did in his youth, but he got bored with it (I think).


----------



## STFC (Sep 9, 2009)

Lord Camomile said:


> Football kicks off at 22:00, Derren is on at 22:35; fella ain't no fool



The football kicks off at 20.00.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

Lord Camomile said:


> He's insinuated on a number of occaissions that this is what he did in his youth, but he got bored with it (I think).



I'm sure I've heard him say he's been banned from Casino's inthe UK and wasn't allowed at the dogs either (assuming after making some quick bucks ripping em off)


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 9, 2009)

STFC said:


> The football kicks off at 20.00.


 Yes, that's what I mean 

He may be no fool, but clearly I am


----------



## Balbi (Sep 9, 2009)

He has you already Cam


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 9, 2009)

I'd love to meet him and get the details about the fistfight he had with Derek Acorah in a Brighton hotel lobby.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 9, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> I'm sure I've heard him say he's been banned from Casino's inthe UK and wasn't allowed at the dogs either (assuming after making some quick bucks ripping em off)


 Yeah, pretty sure he's banned from all casinos (much like Stephen Merchant, oddly), dunno about race tracks.

But I do believe he still turned his back on it, as he could quite easily do stuff without going near a casino.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

Balbi said:


> With the football on the other side, those who tune in to watch will be those who really want to tune in and watch - DB fans and people who might be more suggestible to the DB subconscious imagery and that. So he'll naturally have a larger proportion than normal of his audience who will be 'affected' by the program, because they _want_ to be.
> 
> I think DB's a bit of a knobber personally, if I had his 'abilities' i'd be running the fucking planet with Dave Icke and the lizardmen by now.


Or perhaps people who are not entertained by the pigs bladder circus.

My feeling is that this trick isn't to be taken alone, it's going to programme us all (!) for the whole piece, the synergy of all these events the meaning of which will become clear afterwards.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

DotCommunist said:


> I'd love to meet him and get the details about the fistfight he had with Derek Acorah in a Brighton hotel lobby.


would that be an imaginary fist fight then?

these sorts of apocryphal stories are the kind we can only wish were true.


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> would that be an imaginary fist fight then?
> 
> these sorts of apocryphal stories are the kind we can only wish were true.



It was in the Sun.

So veracity is uncertain. I'd love to find out though.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 9, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> a crush?
> 
> was he 15 and did he bite his lip alot?



I'm at work FFS!   

It's not appropriate.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 9, 2009)

Balbi said:


> I think DB's a bit of a knobber personally, if I had his 'abilities' i'd be running the fucking planet with Dave Icke and the lizardmen by now.




He is.  


You've just been too busy looking at that giraffe dressed as a policeman waltzing round the garden to notice.


----------



## Ozric (Sep 9, 2009)

I reckon he'll convince anyone that has won the lottery that the numbers he's 'suggesting' are the numbers they picked hence giving the illusion that he picked the winning numbers.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

Has anyone bought a ticket using those 5 numbers???


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> Has anyone bought a ticket using those 5 numbers???


yep.

You won't be laughing when I buy your family and have them shipped to my private salt mine and love palace.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

Ozric said:


> I reckon he'll convince anyone that has won the lottery that the numbers he's 'suggesting' are the numbers they picked hence giving the illusion that he picked the winning numbers.


can't see that working given their ticket will say different. but i think you might be on the right lines.


----------



## Ozric (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> can't see that working given their ticket will say different. but i think you might be on the right lines.


By suggesting I mean that they are not the 5 numbers from the lampost but numbers he will suggest tonight by means of some evil mind boggling dark hoccum.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> yep.
> 
> You won't be laughing when I buy your family and have them shipped to my private salt mine and love palace.



You will when I out bid you for yours and have them join me with my 3 tickets!!


*in your face AW*


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 9, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> a crush?
> 
> was he 15 and did he bite his lip alot?



No. But I'm biting mine now.


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 9, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> Has anyone bought a ticket using those 5 numbers???



What are the numbers?

Surely you only need to spend £49 to guarantee millions?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> You will when I out bid you for yours and have them join me with my 3 tickets!!
> 
> 
> *in your face AW*


you're welcome to them.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> you're welcome to them.


----------



## zoooo (Sep 9, 2009)

I don't understaaaand.

Has he already said the numbers publicly, and it's for tonight's lottery?

Or is he saying the numbers tonight and it's for Saturday's?

Or is he doing something shite like putting some numbers in an envelope and not telling us them until he opens it after the lottery results, ala Paul Daniels?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

Ours is not to reason why, but to unwittingly open the seventh seal.


----------



## themonkeyman (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> so that site is nothing to do with the show at all?



oops just wasted £2 then, ha ha


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

themonkeyman said:


> oops just wasted £2 then, ha ha



The numbers are on the lampost in the advert


----------



## themonkeyman (Sep 9, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> The numbers are on the lampost in the advert



in that case, i could be a millionaire.

Surely its worth a go isn't it ?


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

themonkeyman said:


> in that case, i could be a millionaire.
> 
> Surely its worth a go isn't it ?



aye

but you 'd still have to gues the 6th number correctly

theres only 5 numbers onthe lamppost


----------



## elevendayempire (Sep 9, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> aye
> 
> but you 'd still have to gues the 6th number correctly
> 
> theres only 5 numbers onthe lamppost


Okay, _what are they_? Can't get on YouTube here...


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> Okay, _what are they_? Can't get on YouTube here...



6, 10, 22, 25, 47

I think it's too late to but a ticket now tho isn't it??


----------



## fogbat (Sep 9, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> 6, 10, 22, 25, 47
> 
> I think it's too late to but a ticket now tho isn't it??



I think you've got until this evening, haven't you?


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

fogbat said:


> I think you've got until this evening, haven't you?



Dunno

I'm sure the woman in the shop round the corner from me was telling me at 16:00 on lottery days the machines shut down and you can't buy ANY tickets for a certain number of hours


----------



## fogbat (Sep 9, 2009)

You have another 3 hours and 2 minutes if you buy online.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 9, 2009)

It's usually half an hour before the draw, I thought. 

I remember because I read that if you are over 40 and buy a ticket just before it shuts you have more chance of dying in that half hour than winning the lottery. 

/bringer of glad tidings]


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> yep.
> 
> You won't be laughing when I buy your family and have them shipped to my private salt mine and love palace.



Really?

If you won millions you would buy a salt mine? 

I think you need to set your sights a little higher!


----------



## themonkeyman (Sep 9, 2009)

Jonti said:


> 6 people, say and 60,000 slips
> 1 person does 10,000 slips
> 
> How long does each slip take? At least 10 seconds, surely.  That's about 28 hours.



Just do it online


----------



## themonkeyman (Sep 9, 2009)

maomao said:


> I thought the horse racing one was the best of the lot. Shed a tear at the end when he showed her that she did have the winning betting slip.



Yeah I agree I really liked that one, it was quality


----------



## themonkeyman (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> yep.
> 
> You won't be laughing when I buy your family and have them shipped to my private salt mine and love palace.



Yeah me too I reckon I might then employ brown and stephen merchant and overthrow David Icke and become the lizard warlord


----------



## Corax (Sep 9, 2009)

The idea of Derren Brown going into politics is slightly frightening.

The idea that the government already employ people like him is fucking terrifying.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 9, 2009)

I've just bought my first ever lottery ticket. 

I used 9 as the 6th

A pound is cheap to be part of one of his tricks, can't get 2 packets of crisps for that. 

(and I get 4 more shots coz minimum amount was £5)


----------



## debaser (Sep 9, 2009)

ello ello, I used 9 as well.. 

what have other people chosen?


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

DexterTCN said:


> I've just bought my first ever lottery ticket.



This time tomorrow Rodney, we'll be millionaires


I used 12, 7 & 3. The three numbers I have tattoo'd on me


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 9, 2009)

am i missing something here? why are people buying lottery tickets?


----------



## Daniel (Sep 9, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> am i missing something here? why are people buying lottery tickets?



It costs a pound, and if the numbers come in and I coulda won some money, I'd feel like more of a mug then I would if they didn't come in and I had been drawn into Mr Browns whole stunt.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 9, 2009)

but he hasn't predicted them yet has he? and even if he does, your share of the jackpot will be tiny


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 9, 2009)

The trick is that he's actually working as a promoter for Camelot.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 9, 2009)

debaser said:


> ello ello, I used 9 as well..
> 
> what have other people chosen?



29 - my age 

Have we all worked out what we'll be buying with our fabulous winnings? I think I'm going to open a monkey sanctuary.


----------



## Daniel (Sep 9, 2009)

Yea it might be, but I can frame it and tell my grandchildren this was the winning lottery ticket!

That should impress them a little bit


----------



## mauvais (Sep 9, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> but he hasn't predicted them yet has he? and even if he does, your share of the jackpot will be tiny


This. I don't get it.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 9, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> but he hasn't predicted them yet has he? and even if he does, your share of the jackpot will be tiny



They're the numbers that were on the lamppost in his backwards-walking advert.

It's only a quid, and it's a nice way to have an extra emotional investment in the programme.

I don't seriously believe they'll come up 

If they do, though, I will buy you a real orang utan


----------



## Throbbing Angel (Sep 9, 2009)

I haven't read this thread, but, I just wanted to say that Derren gave me some lottery numbers a few years back in a webchat that was on after one of his early channel 4 shows.

I have been sticking those numbers on since 2004 and recently they have won 2 tenners and then I had 4 numbers a fortnight ago.....so fingers legs and bollocks crossed that he has some numerical sway and that the numbers he predicted in 2004 (which didn't come up that weekend by the way!) come up tonight!

Go Derren.

Wifey is SO sure that they are gonna win that she has put the numbers on as well so that if we have to share, we get 2 shares of the winnings (ffs).




So, tired though that I may be going to bed soon


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 9, 2009)

fogbat said:


> They're the numbers that were on the lamppost in his backwards-walking advert.
> 
> It's only a quid, and it's a nice way to have an extra emotional investment in the programme.
> 
> ...



ok, but i still don't get why you're spending a quid. you just need to watch it.


----------



## Daniel (Sep 9, 2009)

You have to put the numbers in by 7:30 I was just told, wow I suck.

My number was gona be 12 anyways


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 9, 2009)

Throbbing Angel said:


> I haven't read this thread, but, I just wanted to say that Derren gave me some lottery numbers a few years back in a webchat that was on after one of his early channel 4 shows.
> 
> I have been sticking those numbers on since 2004 and recently they have won 2 tenners and then I had 4 numbers a fortnight ago.....so fingers legs and bollocks crossed that he has some numerical sway and that the numbers he predicted in 2004 (which didn't come up that weekend by the way!) come up tonight!
> 
> ...


oh for christ's sake - you sound like an ideal deal or no deal contestant!


----------



## fogbat (Sep 9, 2009)

If you carry on like this, OU, there's be no ginger primate for you


----------



## Throbbing Angel (Sep 9, 2009)

fogbat said:


> If you carry on like this, OU, there's be no ginger primate for you



yeah,

miserable twunt


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 9, 2009)

what's tonight's estimated jackpot?
and how many people are going to buy a ticket? 
winners may end up losing a few pence


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 9, 2009)

Throbbing Angel said:


> yeah,
> 
> miserable twunt



i am full of joy!


----------



## T & P (Sep 9, 2009)

I chose 4 as the final number. 

Not that I believe he can predict shit, but if by amazing coincidence some of the numbers do come up, I don't wanna lose out. Even a tenner would do nicely.


----------



## N_igma (Sep 9, 2009)

I bet no one watches the actual lottery, poor beep.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 9, 2009)

Hmm...

*tunes in to have a look at what all this is about then*


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 9, 2009)

If the BBC have a 'legal right' to announce the lottery numbers first (as derren himself just said), what's to stop him showing us the numbers he's 'guessed'? He's not announcing them, he's 'predicting' them.

This already looks a bit iffy


----------



## Bassism (Sep 9, 2009)

how many times is he gonna say 'live' cough wanker cough


----------



## Bassism (Sep 9, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> The trick is that he's actually working as a promoter for Camelot.



i agree with this


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 9, 2009)

WHUT?


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 9, 2009)

WTF?


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 9, 2009)




----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 9, 2009)

Load of bollocks.

What would've been more impressive is to have shown the balls before they were drawn.


----------



## la ressistance (Sep 9, 2009)

the camera was very twitchy,why not a locked of camera on a tripod?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 9, 2009)

well done all, you've won 76p each


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Sep 9, 2009)

impressive...


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 9, 2009)

The camera never left the balls.


Just a thought, has anyone checked the beeb to make sure those were the actual numbers drawn?


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 9, 2009)

yeah i was flicking


----------



## ruffneck23 (Sep 9, 2009)

yep , i was switching between the 2 but still ...


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 9, 2009)

skyscraper101 said:


> Load of bollocks.
> 
> What would've been more impressive is to have shown the balls before they were drawn.



you have confused magic with a trick


----------



## grit (Sep 9, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> The camera never left the balls.
> 
> 
> Just a thought, has anyone checked the beeb to make sure those were the actual numbers drawn?



thats just what i was thinking, if they are correct, i was watching online so couldnt flick to confirm the "liveness" however i figured he wouldnt attempt to say that if it was true.


----------



## debaser (Sep 9, 2009)

skyscraper101 said:


> If the BBC have a 'legal right' to announce the lottery numbers first (as derren himself just said), what's to stop him showing us the numbers he's 'guessed'? He's not announcing them, he's 'predicting' them.
> 
> This already looks a bit iffy



a legal right eh... to announce the lottery numbers first eh... 

what the shit.


----------



## Bassism (Sep 9, 2009)

His voice grates on my nerves.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 9, 2009)

Right lets work this out before friday then. The camera never left the balls. The balls never moved. Is there any way the numbers could've been atched on the balls in those few seconds?


----------



## purplex (Sep 9, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> impressive...



What was everyone looking at?


----------



## madamv (Sep 9, 2009)

Ooh. Wonder why he didnt show them before the draw?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Sep 9, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Right lets work this out before friday then. The camera never left the balls. The balls never moved. Is there any way the numbers could've been atched on the balls in those few seconds?




invisible to the eye inkjet


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 9, 2009)

grit said:


> thats just what i was thinking, if they are correct, i was watching online so couldnt flick to confirm the "liveness" however i figured he wouldnt attempt to say that if it was true.



I was watching on TV, and flicked over, the feeds were close enough as to be exact as far as I could tell. I forgot to flick over to the BBC to see if the numbers they were shown to be drawing were actually the ones being drawn though, iyswim.


----------



## STFC (Sep 9, 2009)

debaser said:


> a legal right eh... to announce the lottery numbers first eh...
> 
> what the shit.



That's probably true though, and easily checkable I'd have thought.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 9, 2009)

but i thought he'd already predicted the numbers in the ads? why did all these people buy a lottery ticket? is it because they are idiots?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> well done all, you've won 76p each


Not even that.

My dreams of an urban staffed salt mine sex death star lie in tatters thanks to that ming bearded mind botherer.

Not really sure what I just watched, but him saying we can do this ourselves implies theres some sort of methodology (as opposed to being filmed all day for a sequence of 10 coin flips). So unless he's spent a year working out random patterns and statistics then it's got to be camera chicanery. Though i also don't understand why he couldn't just post this prediction on his blog this morning.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 9, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> but i thought he'd already predicted the numbers in the ads? why did all these people buy a lottery ticket? is it because they are idiots?



It wasn't those numbers.


----------



## grit (Sep 9, 2009)

I was impressed.


----------



## Weller (Sep 9, 2009)

Darren Brown , lottery prediction -my prediction of how it was done is - 

left side of picture gets replaced with a "green Screened" or  chroma keyed fake mask   picture of the balls like they do on the weather 

 The "faked mask" static fake picture down left hand side of screen covers the "bloke" that replaces the balls as they are called. Then live screen returns complete including the left half.

Re:  the shakey camera (no need for this with... todays tech) .
The ONLY reason there could be imo for the balls to be so far from any movement and the shakey camera so that when the static picture replaces the left half any slight misalignment wouldnt be noticed.


Its no different to movies really when they replace cctv footage but this is just down the left half sheilding the "ball changer" .

Anyone with other ideas , seems doable to me especially seeing the easy chroma keying tech that exists in even sony vegas for £50.00 lol


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 9, 2009)

i wonder if he bought a ticket and we wont see him friday


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> So unless he's spent a year working out random patterns and statistics then it's got to be camera chicanery.



What patterns and statistics? There is a one in fourty nine chance of getting the first ball right, one in fourty eight of the second, etc. This can never change, outside factors like what came out last week don't influence that.


----------



## 8den (Sep 9, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> but i thought he'd already predicted the numbers in the ads? why did all these people buy a lottery ticket? is it because they are idiots?



I don't see the difference between this and regular lotto ticket buyers.


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 9, 2009)

Weller said:


> Darren Brown , lottery prediction -my prediction of how done is - , shakey camera left side of picture gets replaced with a "green Screened" static picture of the balls like they do on the weather m the shakey camera (no need for this with... todays tech) . The "green Screened" static fake picture down left hand side of screen covers the "bloke" that replaces the balls as they are called. Then live screen returns complete including the left half.
> 
> The ONLY reason there could be imo for the balls to be so far from any movement , its no different to movies really when they replace cctv footage but this is just down the left half sheilding the "ball changer" .



he has never really been in to camera tricks has he?


----------



## Flashman (Sep 9, 2009)

I like Derren, I'd have him in my category anytime.

Nice trick.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 9, 2009)

8den said:


> I don't see the difference between this and regular lotto ticket buyers.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> I was watching on TV, and flicked over, the feeds were close enough as to be exact as far as I could tell. I forgot to flick over to the BBC to see if the numbers they were shown to be drawing were actually the ones being drawn though, iyswim.


i watched the draw on beeb and flicked back, it seemed pretty legit there. I can't imagine he's cooked up some scheme with camelot because that would be illegal.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 9, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> It wasn't those numbers.



haha - so they're even bigger eejits


----------



## grit (Sep 9, 2009)

Cant be sure obviously but it was convincing. I dont think its an impossible feat either, however my mind hurts thinking of the maths involved.


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 9, 2009)

who the fuck watched this on a wall outside anyways?


----------



## lizzieloo (Sep 9, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> but i thought he'd already predicted the numbers in the ads? why did all these people buy a lottery ticket? is it because they are idiots?


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 9, 2009)

the results aren't up on www.national-lottery.co.uk yet.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

Weller said:


> Darren Brown , lottery prediction -my prediction of how it was done is -
> 
> left side of picture gets replaced with a "green Screened" or  chroma keyed fake mask   picture of the balls like they do on the weather m the shakey camera (no need for this with... todays tech) . The "faked mask" static fake picture down left hand side of screen covers the "bloke" that replaces the balls as they are called. Then live screen returns complete including the left half.
> 
> ...



Thats exactly what I thought

watched it a couple more times too see, but couldn't


looking forward to hearing how he does it on Friday


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> What patterns and statistics? There is a one in fourty nine chance of getting the first ball right, one in fourty eight of the second, etc. This can never change, outside factors like what came out last week don't influence that.


The _only _way i can think of 'beating' a random draw is guesswork based on patterns of numbers that have appeared. 

Unless you think it was magic of course! 

He says it's a way we can all do at home, but i doubt any of us has access to green screens and how would that predict numbers? Unless do it at home measn replicate the _trick_, not predict the lottery result.


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 9, 2009)

Miss. A from Lancashire has just won £10.00!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> haha - so they're even bigger eejits


No, we just thought it'd be a bit of fun.


----------



## pboi (Sep 9, 2009)

wait im confused. so whats on tv now is different to earlier?


----------



## grit (Sep 9, 2009)

I'm starting to wonder if he is legit, how it was done. Was it something crazy like doing calculations on how those balls are released?


----------



## Weller (Sep 9, 2009)

joustmaster said:


> he has never really been in to camera tricks has he?



Yeah , the cars in the advert are only 2d cardboard representations of a 3d car 

and is it really a massive camera trick its only covering the left side of screen with what it looked like so that someone can walk behind the virtual "screen"


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> The _only _way i can think of 'beating' a random draw is guesswork based on patterns of numbers that have appeared.
> 
> Unless you think it was magic of course!
> 
> He says it's a way we can all do at home, but i doubt any of us has access to green screens and how would that predict numbers? Unless do it at home measn replicate the _trick_, not predict the lottery result.



The odds of guessing are astronomical, as proved by the fact that you still haven't won. There is no way he could guess. There is no way he could analyse opatterns, as there are no patterns. I don't think he's magic, I think he's a trickster, as he often says. I just don't know what the trick is.


----------



## mhwfc (Sep 9, 2009)

joustmaster said:


> the results aren't up on www.national-lottery.co.uk yet.



They never are for a little while after the draw, the balls and machine are checked to ensure everything's above board before the results are confirmed online and on the late night update on BBC1


----------



## pboi (Sep 9, 2009)

how would he find a way round presupposing aa government licensed, established lottery event?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> No, we just thought it'd be a bit of fun.



i had fun and i didn't spend a quid. i spent my quid on a selection of sliced german sausages from tesco on special offer. i had more fun than you


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 9, 2009)

pboi said:


> how would he find a way round presupposing aa government licensed, established lottery event?



He hasn't. That's why it's called a trick. Cos he's tricked us.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Sep 9, 2009)

dunno how the feck he did it..

he's up to some freaky shit at the moment on C4...  i know a lot of it is suggestive but still pretty freaky stuff...
Pity he comes across as a prat tho


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> The _only _way i can think of 'beating' a random draw is guesswork based on patterns of numbers that have appeared.
> .



previous numbers have no effect on the current draw. the balls don't know that they should take turns...


----------



## fogbat (Sep 9, 2009)

Is anyone watching the following programme - The Gathering?

The word "forget" has been flashed very briefly onto a wall behind him at least twice


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 9, 2009)

Weller said:


> Yeah , the cars in the advert are only 2d cardboard representations of a 3d car
> 
> and is it really a massive camera trick its only covering the left side of screen with what it looked like so that someone can walk behind the virtual "screen"




i'd be really disappointed in him if its just a simple bit of greenscreening. seems a bit shit compared to his other stuff


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> The odds of guessing are astronomical, as proved by the fact that you still haven't won. There is no way he could guess. There is no way he could analyse opatterns, as there are no patterns. I don't think he's magic, I think he's a trickster, as he often says. I just don't know what the trick is.


how does the fact i haven't won prove anything? I barely play the lottery and certainly don't spend a year (which he claims is how long he's been preparing all this) studying the results etc.

I can't think of any other way of doing this. I can't really believe it would be camera chicanery/green screens. But not revealing the prediction first is clearly the focal point.


----------



## T & P (Sep 9, 2009)

If it's down to a camera trick I'd be disappointed tbf. I know there is a trick involved in the stunt, but I'd expect something better than smoke and mirrors from him.

The same goes if the numbers were somehow printed on the balls remotely once the numbers were announced (I'm sure it's not beyond modern technology to do such thing, i.e. the balls being in effect very small screen displays).

Still, he said at the end he'll explain not only how he did it but how the public at home can attempt it, so I guess that rules out camera or computer trickery.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> i had fun and i didn't spend a quid. i spent my quid on a selection of sliced german sausages from tesco on special offer. i had more fun than you


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

joustmaster said:


> previous numbers have no effect on the current draw. the balls don't know that they should take turns...




Ok, Mr Spock.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 9, 2009)

Perhaps he filmed it with every possible selection of numbers, and they just cut, last minute, to the one where he guessed correctly?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

T & P said:


> If it's down to a camera trick I'd be disappointed tbf. I know there is a trick involved in the stunt, but I'd expect something better than smoke and mirrors from him.
> 
> The same goes if the numbers were somehow printed on the balls remotely once the numbers were announced (I'm sure it's not beyond modern technology to do such thing, i.e. the balls being in effect very small screen displays).
> 
> Still, he said at the end he'll explain not only how he did it but how the public at home can attempt it, so I guess that rules out camera or computer trickery.


Ok this is weird: maybe only the backs of the balls were shown - literally. He then prepares the other half by hand hiding them in the board he used when writing the results down. Then he somehow sticks two halves together at the point of reveal via prestidigitation.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Sep 9, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Is anyone watching the following programme - The Gathering?
> 
> The word "forget" has been flashed very briefly onto a wall behind him at least twice



aye i noticed that too....


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Sep 9, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Perhaps he filmed it with every possible selection of numbers, and they just cut, last minute, to the one where he guessed correctly?



So 14 million takes, then?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Perhaps he filmed it with every possible selection of numbers, and they just cut, last minute, to the one where he guessed correctly?


Like the coin flipping he could have been playing loads of tickets each week for a year to get the perfect result. Statistics then work in his favour ever more.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> aye i noticed that too....


TFhat's not pOart of TRhe EvenGt tEhough is iT?


----------



## Weller (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> The _only _way i can think of 'beating' a random draw is guesswork based on patterns of numbers that have appeared.
> 
> Unless you think it was magic of course!
> 
> He says it's a way we can all do at home, but i doubt any of us has access to green screens and how would that predict numbers? Unless do it at home measn replicate the _trick_, not predict the lottery result.



You could do it with a big cardboard cut out of the left side of your room to get someone to hide behind , old world chroma keying 



maybe he used old style "green screening" too it would not need to be total coverage maybe theres a reason for the bricks


----------



## mauvais (Sep 9, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Perhaps he filmed it with every possible selection of numbers, and they just cut, last minute, to the one where he guessed correctly?


That's my guess too. 55,000 times for 5 balls, so 300 a day for a year maybe. TV was off and they probably cut scene supposedly with the second camera.


----------



## pboi (Sep 9, 2009)

well its some clever shit


----------



## fogbat (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Like the coin flipping he could have been playing loads of tickets each week for a year to get the perfect result. Statistics then work in his favour ever more.



What?

No.

The previous results will have no bearing on any other set of results.


----------



## N_igma (Sep 9, 2009)

mauvais said:


> That's my guess too. 55,000 times for 5 balls, so 300 a day for a year maybe. TV was off and they probably cut scene supposedly with the second camera.



Yeh but he said everyone at home could do it...some of us have real jobs Mr. Brown.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> TFhat's not pOart of TRhe EvenGt tEhough is iT?



tell ya what though... im glad im straight...
nice bag of green for friday me thinks!!!


----------



## grit (Sep 9, 2009)

mauvais said:


> That's my guess too. 55,000 times for 5 balls, so 300 a day for a year maybe. TV was off and they probably cut scene supposedly with the second camera.



Thats the best guess so far i think


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

AKA pseudonym said:


> tell ya what though... im glad im straight...
> nice bag of green for friday me thinks!!!


I think we're all glad you're straight


----------



## lizzieloo (Sep 9, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Is anyone watching the following programme - The Gathering?
> 
> The word "forget" has been flashed very briefly onto a wall behind him at least twice



He keeps doing a weird twitching thing too


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 9, 2009)

N_igma said:


> Yeh but he said everyone at home could do it...some of us have real jobs Mr. Brown.


He clearly used some sort of device that you'd find on the wrapper of a Bazooka Joe candy, or the pages of an old comic book inbetween the ad for Charles Atlas pecs, X Ray Specs and a paper round selling Grit.


----------



## N_igma (Sep 9, 2009)

lizzieloo said:


> He keeps doing a weird twitching thing too



Part of his misdirection I presume. Subliminal messages and whatnot.

This thing on now is a repeat. I can vividly remember that silly cunt saying Africa was a country ages ago.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 9, 2009)

lizzieloo said:


> He keeps doing a weird twitching thing too



Yep - he's been doing that for a while on his tv shows and live.

He claims it's become an involuntary habit. Whether that's true, I don't know


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> how does the fact i haven't won prove anything? I barely play the lottery and certainly don't spend a year (which he claims is how long he's been preparing all this) studying the results etc.
> 
> I can't think of any other way of doing this. I can't really believe it would be camera chicanery/green screens. But not revealing the prediction first is clearly the focal point.



Not you specifically, fool 

Your understanding of basic mathematics seems to be getting in the way a bit here. The balls that come out of the machine are _random_. There is no pattern, and the numbers cannot be predicted based on what has happened previously. Studying results could not improve your chances, it's not a fucking horse race.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> i had fun and i didn't spend a quid. i spent my quid on a selection of sliced german sausages from tesco on special offer. i had more fun than you



I hope they give you the shits


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 9, 2009)

mauvais said:


> That's my guess too. 55,000 times for 5 balls, so 300 a day for a year maybe. TV was off and they probably cut scene supposedly with the second camera.



this seems like a likely answer.. good maths.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 9, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


>



miseriguts!


----------



## Ride (Sep 9, 2009)

According to the official lottery site there were 7 people who predicted all 6 numbers, is that normal? 

How many 6 ball winners do they usually get?


----------



## strung out (Sep 9, 2009)

fuck there's some idiots here


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 9, 2009)

mauvais said:


> That's my guess too. 55,000 times for 5 balls, so 300 a day for a year maybe. TV was off and they probably cut scene supposedly with the second camera.



Mmmm


yeah thats good thinking


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 9, 2009)

strung_out said:


> fuck there's some idiots here


----------



## N_igma (Sep 9, 2009)

Ride said:


> is that normal?



It's not unheard of if that's what you want to know.



strung_out said:


> fuck there's some idiots here



Why?


----------



## strung out (Sep 9, 2009)

mauvais said:


> That's my guess too. 55,000 times for 5 balls, so 300 a day for a year maybe. TV was off and they probably cut scene supposedly with the second camera.



6 balls wasn't it? 14 million combinations


----------



## mauvais (Sep 9, 2009)

strung_out said:


> 6 balls, 14 million combinations


Yeah, but he only said he was going to get 5. Given a full set of sequences of 5, the chances of him getting the last one are 1 in 44.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 9, 2009)

N_igma said:


> It's not unheard of if that's what you want to know.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?



read the thread!


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 9, 2009)

Hi, can i take this oppurtunity to remind you all that IT'S A FUCKING TRICK.


----------



## N_igma (Sep 9, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Hi, can i take this oppurtunity to remind you all that IT'S A FUCKING TRICK.



Yes and people are trying to figure out how he done the trick. What's wrong with that?


----------



## fogbat (Sep 9, 2009)

mauvais said:


> That's my guess too. 55,000 times for 5 balls, so 300 a day for a year maybe. TV was off and they probably cut scene supposedly with the second camera.



I think it's only about 150 a day for a year, isn't it?

150 X 365 = 54750, which is almost there.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 9, 2009)

Well yeah, but I was figuring about 200 working days.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 9, 2009)

N_igma said:


> Yes and people are trying to figure out how he done the trick. What's wrong with that?



Because people aren't trying to figure out how he's done the trick, they're trying to figure out how he guessed the right lottery numbers. He didn't, it was a trick. The lottery numbers cannot be predicted.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 9, 2009)

mauvais said:


> Well yeah, but I was figuring about 200 working days.



I was just worried I'd forgotten how to multiply


----------



## strung out (Sep 9, 2009)

video here if anyone wants more looks...


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 9, 2009)

strung_out said:


> video here if anyone wants more looks...




hmm
can't see any cut.
and it must be a bit tricky too keep your hair, clothes, beard etc all the same every day, every take.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 9, 2009)

joustmaster said:


> hmm
> can't see any cut.
> and it must be a bit tricky too keep your hair, clothes, beard etc all the same every day, every take.



Exactly what I was just thinking. I don't think it's green screened. 

Why does he walk in fornt of the balls though?


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Sep 9, 2009)

what was that show just on C4?

i musta fell asleep or something...


----------



## kabbes (Sep 9, 2009)

I don't reckon he filmed 55,000 versions.  He's already essentially done that trick with coin flips.  And it would be a bit of a shit waste of a year for the sake of a 10 minute slot.  (Besides, although he said he'd get 5 numbers, he ended up with all 6.  I don't think that was an accident).

Green screen is the best guess so far, but it's probably something nobody has yet thought of.


----------



## T & P (Sep 9, 2009)

It's a good theory, and a lot of hard work it has to be said. Even if the the actual sequence that was to be filmed again and again was only a minute long, it'd still be many hours of filming every single day plus resetting the time consumed by resetting the balls, testing, bad takes, etc. We're talking 12 hours a day non stop for nearly a year. Then again, unless it's a trick, he's just claiming on the programme being shown now to have memorised the entire contents of the London A-Z book, including all the grid coordinates. Nutter.

I wonder when the 'cut' in the filming was made. Perhaps when the tv screen when live, and everybody started looking at it?


----------



## strung out (Sep 9, 2009)

N_igma said:


> Why?



because some people obviously don't understand probabilities


----------



## N_igma (Sep 9, 2009)

strung_out said:


> because some people obviously don't understand probabilities



I'd say there's a fair probability of that when big numbers are involved.


----------



## strung out (Sep 9, 2009)

or small IQs


----------



## T & P (Sep 9, 2009)

Paul Daniels has said before the event that he knows how it's being done, and that even if Brown reveals (and therefore 'ruins') the trick on Friday, there are still "99 other ways to doing it"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/sep/09/derren-brown-lottery-paul-daniels


----------



## purplex (Sep 10, 2009)

Mirrors? Were we seeing reflected balls?


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 10, 2009)

strung_out said:


> because some people obviously don't understand probabilities


----------



## N_igma (Sep 10, 2009)

T & P said:


> Paul Daniels has said before the event that he knows how it's being done, and that even if Brown reveals (and therefore 'ruins') the trick on Friday, there are still "99 other ways to doing it"
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/sep/09/derren-brown-lottery-paul-daniels



Love the pic they chose of him.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 10, 2009)

T & P said:


> Paul Daniels has said before the event that he knows how it's being done, and that even if Brown reveals (and therefore 'ruins') the trick on Friday, there are still "99 other ways to doing it"
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2009/sep/09/derren-brown-lottery-paul-daniels



that's a great photo of pd


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 10, 2009)

so did he do it then?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 10, 2009)

i bought 2 pound worth of tickets just in case btw.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> so did he do it then?



He certainly appeared to


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

well i'm a million quid richer so i guess he must have done


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Sep 10, 2009)

so he really does seem to have picked 6 numbers that matched the lottery?

now why could they both have a (pecuniary) interest in ensuring that outcome?

and then he's gonna tell us all how....


----------



## ouchmonkey (Sep 10, 2009)

devilry I tell you


----------



## sumimasen (Sep 10, 2009)

The fact that no-one before or after the event has had a clue in explaining how he did it shows his original creativity, and for that he has to be respected hardcore!


----------



## paolo (Sep 10, 2009)

joustmaster said:


>



"This family next door... they had a horse in the living room".


----------



## smmudge (Sep 10, 2009)

mauvais said:


> That's my guess too. 55,000 times for 5 balls, so 300 a day for a year maybe. TV was off and they probably cut scene supposedly with the second camera.



Where's 55,000 come from? I thought he'd have to film 1,906,884 times to get 5 balls right.


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 10, 2009)

smmudge said:


> Where's 55,000 come from? I thought he'd have to film 1,906,884 times to get 5 balls right.



http://www.lottery.co.uk/lottery-odds.asp
nope. not sure where you got that number from


----------



## Weller (Sep 10, 2009)

sumimasen said:


> The fact that no-one before or after the event has had a clue in explaining how he did it shows his original creativity, and for that he has to be respected hardcore!



But there are several in this very thread that have "clues" to how he did it , certainly possible ways that it could be done it all depends on whether you believe or not that he would never use camera trickery or "masks" of any kind and its pure mental genius  

He certainly used 2d cut outs of 3d images in the adverts they stand out like a sore thumb when watched closely and that's not "camera trickery" apparently but changing the way that the eye sees things this will be the same I believe .

Id have been much more impressed had we seen the numbers first but of course we should all know that that just is not possible .

The "trick" is that he has managed to convince some people I know to believe that he HAS somehow predicted this 

There are many ways a magician could accomplish this , I would hope  that Darren Brown has not used any of these seeing as he says he is not a magician 

Im hoping that there is something different to how a magician would do this with either mirrors , screens or up to date camera masking etc but after seeing the 2d/3d cutout foolery in the crossing the road without getting mowed down , Im not so sure that he wont have used some conjuring .

Paul Daniels could have done this years ago and proposed it to the BBC who said at the time that it would make people untrustworthy of the lottery.

I really doubt its got anything at all to do with filming many many thousands of different outcomes though and pasting the correct one in pretty quickly myself .

Friday should be interesting as there are maybe a few anomalies and pointers in the video itself , in particular the longer  / different  route back to the Television after placing  the balls that hides the clear pedestal allowing the placement of a mask (if not done digitally and that movement is itself a misdirection) and of course the plain white non Lottery colored balls which Id have preferred  

I do like the bloke as an entertainer but I expect there will be a lot of "dohs"  if he really does tell exactly how he did it though , I suspect it may all be another "misdirection" but quite entertaining  .


----------



## smmudge (Sep 10, 2009)

joustmaster said:


> http://www.lottery.co.uk/lottery-odds.asp
> nope. not sure where you got that number from



Ah I see. I was working out the combination of picking 5 from 49, rather than the combination of picking 5 and not picking 1 from 49...if you see.....


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

Paul Daniels was a top-notch world-class magician who did things his way in his time and got the audience for it, thus taking magic to new heights.

Derren Brown is a top-notch world-class magician who does things his way in his time and gets the audience for it, thus taking magic to new heights.

They are effectively the same, just separated by 20 years of fashion.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

fogbat said:


> What?
> 
> No.
> 
> The previous results will have no bearing on any other set of results.


You don't understand how he did the coin flipping trick then.


----------



## foo (Sep 10, 2009)

i like it that Derren won't join the Magic Circle though.

sexy rebel.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Not you specifically, fool
> 
> Your understanding of basic mathematics seems to be getting in the way a bit here. The balls that come out of the machine are _random_. There is no pattern, and the numbers cannot be predicted based on what has happened previously. Studying results could not improve your chances, it's not a fucking horse race.


/facepalm.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

Ride said:


> According to the official lottery site there were 7 people who predicted all 6 numbers, is that normal?
> 
> How many 6 ball winners do they usually get?


why would that be relevant? It would be illegal for him to scam the lottery and would end his career pretty quick. There's no way camelot would agree or be allowed to set up some scheme with him for the purposes of his prediction trick.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

He should be burned at the stake!

WITCH!

Trick my arse.


----------



## Weller (Sep 10, 2009)

Debunked ?

Maybe it was done something like this upload to youtube below but would he come clean if it was ..


it certainly could be done this way and I do think that ball moves


----------



## Mitre10 (Sep 10, 2009)

Hmm, didn't see this last night so just looked at it again on youtube:





Think it's plain camera trickery with use of more than the two cameras (the one at the front and the one far away) that he made such a show of pointing out in the beginning. From the youtube clip:

Pre-recorded: 0-43
0-33 secs: Handheld cam
33-36 secs: Tripod/Mounted cam
36-40 secs: Handheld again
40-43 secs: Mounted cam - look where he is standing, then when the next cut happens he is slightly more over to the right

Live:
43: onwards - back to the so called handheld - but now you can see compared to other shots - it isn't handheld at all. It's very mechanical, no pitching/rolling just very robotic, left/right/up/down (done with software further down the feed - easy).

And as others have suggested, it's just a simple split screen with someone replacing the ball tray, and that's why we see that ball 39 is slightly raised after 2:07 because it's not quite sitting in there properly as it was in the other tray. I'd imagine that would be easier than picking out the balls that fast.

Notice at 2:04 the camera goes completely still, nobody can do that with a camera, especially at the guy was show to be holding it under his arm.

He never seemed to use a feed from the camera that was at the back of the studio - maybe the feed from that will be used to show how it was all done...

Will wait to see on Friday though.


----------



## debaser (Sep 10, 2009)

What about..  he's turning/pressing the bottom of the stand or buttons with his feet? The camera does zoom in at that point just before turning his prediction around and he faffs about reading the numbers back to himself while looking at the card or pretending to look at the card. Sounds like something he might do as well train his feet to tap Morse code.

Or perhaps when he's got his hand over his mouth during the draw he's writing or tapping at something? I think I see a little black square in the palm of his hand just as he turns the that stand.

Also he seems to have a very clearly marked bit of position gaffa on the floor there in a little arrow shape and he did stand stock still during the draw seemingly on that mark. So perhaps it is all perspective or camera trickery.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

Mitre10 said:


> Hmm, didn't see this last night so just looked at it again on youtube:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





After lots of thinking

to me it has to be filming 55000 different 5 ball out comes (thus why it took him a year) then just playing one of them for the last minute or so.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

debaser said:


> What about..  he's turning/pressing the bottom of the stand or buttons with his feet? The camera does zoom in at that point just before turning his prediction around and he faffs about reading the numbers back to himself while looking at the card or pretending to look at the card. Sounds like something he might do as well train his feet to tap Morse code.


Whats on the tele at this precise moment???


----------



## foo (Sep 10, 2009)

that jerky nodding thing he does..is it a tic?


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> You don't understand how he did the coin flipping trick then.





Awesome Wells said:


> /facepalm.



You flip a coin ten times and they all come heads. What is the odds of the next flip being heads?

its 50/50
same as it is regardless of what it has been in the past.

the same way 1 2 3 4 5 6 is just as likely to come up on the lottery as any other random set of numbers. Just the same as last weeks numbers are likely to come up.

maths etc.


----------



## maomao (Sep 10, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> After lots of thinking
> 
> to me it has to be filming 55000 different 5 ball out comes (thus why it took him a year) then just playing one of them for the last minute or so.



Except he got all 6 so he'd still have to be really lucky. The 'I might only get 5', 'channel 4 won't let me buy a ticket' spiel was part of the misdirection to make you think it was something other than a camera trick/traditional last minute switch, which is what it was.

I like Brown but this was a bit crap, unless of course it's part of a larger misdirection.


----------



## maomao (Sep 10, 2009)

debaser said:


> What about..  he's turning/pressing the bottom of the stand or buttons with his feet? The camera does zoom in at that point just before turning his prediction around and he faffs about reading the numbers back to himself while looking at the card or pretending to look at the card. Sounds like something he might do as well train his feet to tap Morse code.
> 
> Or perhaps when he's got his hand over his mouth during the draw he's writing or tapping at something? I think I see a little black square in the palm of his hand just as he turns the that stand.
> 
> Also he seems to have a very clearly marked bit of position gaffa on the floor there in a little arrow shape and he did stand stock still during the draw seemingly on that mark. So perhaps it is all perspective or camera trickery.



Why would he be tapping as he watched the tv? Whoever he was communicating to could just as easily be watching it at the same time.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> You don't understand how he did the coin flipping trick then.



*facepalm*

Yes. Yes I do.

Which is why your suggestion that he has performed some sort of statistical analysis of previous results, in order to predict last night's results, is (no pun intended) balls.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

ha he showed the numbers after they were picked that's lame! it's not actual magic at all. it's just like a "pick a card any card" trick


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 10, 2009)

Depends on how he did it, but wasn't very impressive in the end (particularly the lack of audience in the studio, what a cop out).

Yawn.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

rutabowa said:


> ha he showed the numbers after they were picked that's lame! it's not actual magic at all. it's just like a "pick a card any card" trick



It is a terrible disappointment to us all


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

fogbat said:


> It is a terrible disappointment to us all



david copperfield is loads better, when he actually flies.


----------



## debaser (Sep 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> Why would he be tapping as he watched the tv? Whoever he was communicating to could just as easily be watching it at the same time.



I don't think he was communicating with anyone, I think he memorised something a set of movements or whatever, needed to alter that stand quickly. Its at least a little bit Derren Browney camera trickery is too dull even for him.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 10, 2009)

What a load of shit. As soon as he said "the bbc have to announce the numbers before any other channel so I can't show you the balls" you know it's a bullshit run of the mill misdirection/slight of hand/whatever trick. Also - what a load of bollocks - If he is not doing anything illegal, he can show his numbers whenever he likes just as I can announce to the world the numbers I have guessed might win.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

rutabowa said:


> david copperfield is loads better, when he actually flies.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 10, 2009)

debaser said:


> Also he seems to have a very clearly marked bit of position gaffa on the floor there in a little arrow shape and he did stand stock still during the draw seemingly on that mark. So perhaps it is all perspective or camera trickery.



To be fair (though the trick was lame), almost every TV show marks presenter & camera positions on the floor.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> What a load of shit. As soon as he said "the bbc have to announce the numbers before any other channel so I can't show you the balls" you know it's a bullshit run of the mill misdirection/slight of hand/whatever trick. Also - what a load of bollocks - If he is not doing anything illegal, he can show his numbers whenever he likes just as I can announce to the world the numbers I have guessed might win.



*facepalm*

It's a trick.

It's not real.

He is not clairvoyant or is he claiming to be.

He says from the outset that it's a TRICK - a illusion if you will.

And on Friday, all will be revealed.

It was a great trick however he done it.

Why are people getting so riled about this?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> *facepalm*
> 
> It's a trick.
> 
> ...



Why the faceplam? I knew it would be a trick, I tuned in to see an impressive trick but instead I saw a very run of the mill trick dressed up as an event.


----------



## maomao (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Why are people getting so riled about this?



Because he told everyone he'd be announcing them a few moments before the lottery was drawn. Which would have been a quite different trick.


----------



## debaser (Sep 10, 2009)

the advertising and hype was more impressive in the end, magics no fun anymore


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

yeh if you took away the lottery thing it was just a really basic trick.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Why the faceplam? I knew it would be a trick, I tuned in to see an impressive trick but instead I saw a very run of the mill trick dressed up as an event.



If he'd had the numbers on display _before_ they were drawn it wouldn't be an impressive trick.

It would be actual magic.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Why the faceplam? I knew it would be a trick, I tuned in to see an impressive trick but instead I saw a very run of the mill trick dressed up as an event.



He predicted the six lottery numbers live.

(Somehow, as in being a trick).

What did you want?

The second coming of Jesus?


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> Because he told everyone he'd be announcing them a few moments before the lottery was drawn. Which would have been a quite different trick.



That sir/madam is Witchcraft and a completely different thing to an illusion.

He has never claimed to have "powers", that is the point.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> He predicted the six lottery numbers live.



well no, what he did was the same as getting someone to write down a number and reveal it then having that number appear in a sealed envelope or something... and that is an old old trick. the lottery stuff was irrelevant really.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

rutabowa said:


> well no, what he did was the same as getting someone to write down a number and reveal it then having that number appear in a sealed envelope or something... and that is an old old trick.



But six times, live on BBC1?


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> But six times, live on BBC1?



um yeh, he did the trick 6 times quickly! it's not that impressive. and the whole point of magicians is that they do it live!


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 10, 2009)

Was there any mention in the BBC lottery show about it being "live" as there is constantly in the early evening Saturday version? Is it normal to show a Wed draw just before 11.00pm?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 10, 2009)

fogbat said:


> If he'd had the numbers on display _before_ they were drawn it wouldn't be an impressive trick.
> 
> It would be actual magic.



Um yes I know, but I expected to see something that was more of an 'event'. 

Something really clever. I'm not a TV personality trickster so I thought he might have perhaps thought of something better than I could have.


----------



## ouchmonkey (Sep 10, 2009)

heh, heh.

it it me or does the energy being expended on this thread suggest it was a good trick?
the reveal will be more interesting, i'd expect it to be something other than camera tricks or maths, and therefore more impressive than the actual trick.



having said that, do you remember the horse racing one?


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> He predicted the six lottery numbers live.
> 
> (Somehow, as in being a trick).
> 
> ...



No he didn't he did a very run of the mill misdirection trick. I have seen him do better and more interesting than that in his televised live show. I expected more. I didn't know what to expect, I just hoped to be blown away.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Um yes I know, but I expected to see something that was more of an 'event'.
> 
> Something really clever. I'm not a TV personality trickster so I thought he might have perhaps thought of something better than I could have.



Fair point 

I'm looking forward to the explanation on Friday. The "55,000 takes" idea seems the most convincing solution, though I'm hoping it's something nobody's even thought of.

Perhaps he combined that with some sleight-of-hand / other trickery to the get sixth ball matching.

e2a: No, wait. I'm being stupid. If it was one of thousands of pre-recorded takes, then he couldn't change the sixth ball on the night. I are thick


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> No he didn't he did a very run of the mill misdirection trick. I have seen him do better and more interesting than that in his televised live show. I expected more. I didn't know what to expect, I just hoped to be blown away.



TBF it was a bit of a 10 minute hook to get people to watch on Friday


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 10, 2009)

ouchmonkey said:


> heh, heh.
> 
> it it me or does the energy being expended on this thread suggest it was a good trick?
> the reveal will be more interesting, i'd expect it to be something other than camera tricks or maths, and therefore more impressive than the actual trick.
> ...



i liked the horse racing one.
it showed how people will easily believe the impossible


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

Although I'd of been more impressed if he'd of shown the numbers first

The 'BBC won't let us announce the number untill after they have' line was a smokescreen

There no law or anything stopping someone going

Here are 6 numbers I think are gonna be the winning numbers:  7,14,22 etc etc

That would of impressed me more. But I suppose it's impossible to do it that way


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

ouchmonkey said:


> heh, heh.
> 
> it it me or does the energy being expended on this thread suggest it was a good trick?



it suggests it was a good publicity stunt that's all


----------



## debaser (Sep 10, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Fair point
> 
> I'm looking forward to the explanation on Friday. The "55,000 takes" idea seems the most convincing solution, though I'm hoping it's something nobody's even thought of.
> 
> Perhaps he combined that with some sleight-of-hand / other trickery to the get sixth ball matching.



I'm being thick here, how does this 55,000 takes thing work then? They placed the lottery footage over the tv in the record live? why do that when they can just do a video overlay and have somone walk in and change them there and then?


----------



## Ted Striker (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> *facepalm*
> 
> It's a trick.
> 
> ...




Exactly!


----------



## ouchmonkey (Sep 10, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> Although I'd of been more impressed if he'd of shown the numbers first
> 
> That would of impressed me more. But I suppose it's *impossible* to do it that way



indeed. that would either make him _actually_ magic or the draw a fix



rutabowa said:


> it suggests it was a good publicity stunt that's all



trick/stunt

you say potato.......


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

debaser said:


> I'm being thick here, how does this 55,000 takes thing work then? They placed the lottery footage over the tv in the record live? why do that when they can just do a video overlay and have somone walk in and change them there and then?



I believe the TV was switched off before he went over to check the numbers on the balls with the numbers he wrote down off the live lottery show.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

ouchmonkey said:


> trick/stunt
> 
> you say potato.......


i would prefer a skilful trick with less of the hype.... Paul Daniels style.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

fogbat said:


> I believe the TV was switched off before he went over to check the numbers on the balls with the numbers he wrote down off the live lottery show.



There you go then


----------



## Ted Striker (Sep 10, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> Although I'd of been more impressed if he'd of shown the numbers first
> 
> The 'BBC won't let us announce the number untill after they have' line was a smokescreen
> 
> ...




But he hasn't predicted them at all, he's engineered the situation so that it appears as he has?! Everyone understands this, no? The whole "I have them written down" is a humourous/showy build up for the act (unless it's done via fixing ther result, or using an old recording of the show, which is smoewhat unlikely compared to the potential answers as to how he does it)


----------



## debaser (Sep 10, 2009)

fogbat said:


> I believe the TV was switched off before he went over to check the numbers on the balls with the numbers he wrote down off the live lottery show.



So they had to cut at some point between live and recorded? thats still needlessly complex and boring, more so than had he done it there and then with camera trickery which is surely quite possible. We didn't see what he wrote on the card while he was standing at the TV I guess.. wait maybe it is that, but still if it is, booo. I wan't it to at least be some clever memory thing


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 10, 2009)

debaser said:


> So they had to cut at some point between live and recorded? thats still needlessly complex and boring, more so than had he done it there and then with camera trickery which is surely quite possible.



its not his style though. he is more likely to do something that involves loads of time and preparation


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

this 55,000 takes thing is a red herring in my opinion. he did get all 6 numbers correct which was only a 1 in 44 chance of happening had he filmed all those takes. he was always going to get all 6 numbers and the stuff about getting at least 5 numbers just added depth to the whole theatre of the illusion.


----------



## debaser (Sep 10, 2009)

joustmaster said:


> its not his style though. he is more likely to do something that involves loads of time and preparation



well yeah exactly, plus hes already done that before with the coin thing. Does somthing to the stand after the camera zooms in that took him a year to teach himself thats what it'l be!!


----------



## maomao (Sep 10, 2009)

joustmaster said:


> its not his style though. he is more likely to do something that involves loads of time and preparation



Lol. The link posted earlier  makes a fairly convincing case for camera trickery.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

debaser said:


> well yeah exactly, plus hes already done that before with the coin thing. Does somthing to the stand after the camera zooms in that took him a year to teach himself thats what it'l be!!



i would guess this... i reckon the whole thing about "a year in preparation" MAY have just been another trick tho!!


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

strung_out said:


> this 55,000 takes thing is a red herring in my opinion. he did get all 6 numbers correct which was only a 1 in 44 chance of happening had he filmed all those takes. he was always going to get all 6 numbers and the stuff about getting at least 5 numbers just added depth to the whole theatre of the illusion.



I'm starting to think you're right


----------



## potential (Sep 10, 2009)

there is a lazer printer...   can print numbers onto anything.......


----------



## Ted Striker (Sep 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> Lol. The link posted earlier  makes a fairly convincing case for camera trickery.




If that's true it's a bit of an anti climax, and far less inginuitive to the rest of his stuff


----------



## sumimasen (Sep 10, 2009)

I think what annoys people is the hype. The trick itself is very good, but no way worthy of the heights the hype scaled. The BBC legal angle way too amateurish and patronising.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

There is, of course, the question of how much he'll actually reveal on Friday.

Like with the simultaneous chess games thing. He explained how he played each of the games, but not how he predicted the number of pieces left on each board.


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

fogbat said:


> I'm starting to think you're right



it really was magic


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

strung_out said:


> it really was magic



I'd accept him as the Messiah


----------



## maomao (Sep 10, 2009)

Ted Striker said:


> If that's true it's a bit of an anti climax, and far less inginuitive to the rest of his stuff



Well, the ball does appear to move position slightly. I think he's regularly used camera tricks, the misdirection is persuading you that he actually did it in some other clever way.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 10, 2009)

joustmaster said:


> the results aren't up on www.national-lottery.co.uk yet.



That site is always slow as fuck putting the numbers up.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> Lol. The link posted earlier  makes a fairly convincing case for camera trickery.



hardly; the quality is too crap to tell.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

a camera trick would be simplest so that's what i think it is


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

If the lottery _draw_ was 8pm but broadcast later, then the numbers may well be for an entirely different purpose. He may have gotten a deal with camelot and the bbc to know the numbers between 8pm and 10-30pm for the purpose only of a trick he's setting up for friday. that explains why he wasn't (apparnelty) allowed to buy tickets or advertise the numbers at any time ahead of schedule (and why he wouldn't therefore have been able to blog them in time for people to buy tickets). Thus he isn't breaking any rules and tampering with the draw for the benefit of the public and as all will be revealed anyway no harm is done.


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> If the lottery _draw_ was 8pm but broadcast later, then the numbers may well be for an entirely different purpose. He may have gotten a deal with camelot and the bbc to know the numbers between 8pm and 10-30pm for the purpose only of a trick he's setting up for friday. that explains why he wasn't (apparnelty) allowed to buy tickets or advertise the numbers at any time ahead of schedule (and why he wouldn't therefore have been able to blog them in time for people to buy tickets). Thus he isn't breaking any rules and tampering with the draw for the benefit of the public and as all will be revealed anyway no harm is done.



Nah, the draw goes out live.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

strung_out said:


> this 55,000 takes thing is a red herring in my opinion. he did get all 6 numbers correct which was only a 1 in 44 chance of happening had he filmed all those takes. he was always going to get all 6 numbers and the stuff about getting at least 5 numbers just added depth to the whole theatre of the illusion.



It's less then 44 to 1 

due to the different version of 5 number combinations he'd of done IYSWIM

I can't explain it very well, but I'm sure someone else can on here


----------



## maomao (Sep 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> hardly; the quality is too crap to tell.



Well I watched it in full screen, though admittedly not great quality, and the ball does appear to move position slightly. In the original shot the six balls are perfectly level, at the end the final ball (leftmost from the back, rightmost when numbers revealed) is slightly higher than the rest.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

I would be very disappointed if he resorted to a camera trick. I really don't believe that's his style.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> I would be very disappointed if he resorted to a camera trick. I really don't believe that's his style.



Agreed

the 55000 idea makes sense to me, plus it would of taken him about a year


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> It's less then 44 to 1
> 
> due to the different version of 5 number combinations he'd of done IYSWIM
> 
> I can't explain it very well, but I'm sure someone else can on here



We need a kabbes


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> Agreed
> 
> the 55000 idea makes sense to me, plus it would of taken him about a year



i don't know why he would bother doing something that took so much effort when it could be done so easily with a camera trick.


----------



## maomao (Sep 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> I would be very disappointed if he resorted to a camera trick. I really don't believe that's his style.



The fact that you feel like that kind of shows how good his showmanship is.


----------



## foo (Sep 10, 2009)

fogbat said:


> I'd accept him as the Messiah



a woman i work with thinks Derren's been 'touched by the hand of god' 

but she's bonkers anyway.


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

there is no way he did the 55,000 takes thing. seriously, if he turned round on friday and says 'i spent a year filming 55,000 takes' that takes him away from being an illusion/mind tricks artist, and over into fucking sad bastard territory.


----------



## Sadken (Sep 10, 2009)

Ask her what she thinks about gay people please, foo.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

rutabowa said:


> i don't know why he would bother doing something that took so much effort when it could be done so easily with a camera trick.



Coz Thats the way he's made.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> The fact that you feel like that kind of shows how good his showmanship is.


no, i just don't think he's ever used camera tricks before and would hope he's not about to start. i don't care about the showmanship, if he starts faking it like that then i have no more interest in his work. anything's possible with camera trickery so where's the skill?


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 10, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> Agreed
> 
> the 55000 idea makes sense to me, plus it would of taken him about a year


the bit where the cut should be is about a min long. and if you leave 90 seconds to reset it all, that works out at over 2000 hours. Which is about a years mon-fri, 9-5 work.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

strung_out said:


> there is no way he did the 55,000 takes thing. seriously, if he turned round on friday and says 'i spent a year filming 55,000 takes' that takes him away from being an illusion/mind tricks artist, and over into fucking sad bastard territory.



You mean like he did flipping a coin for 9 hours


----------



## ska invita (Sep 10, 2009)

joustmaster said:


> its not his style though. he is more likely to do something that involves loads of time and preparation


None of his tricks particularly involve " loads of time and preparation" - thats just the spiel that he gives to me you think hes a mastermind. All the crap about studying law, and spending the last year reading the A to Z is patter. The set-ups may take time (i.e. setting up a heist, the crew etc.), but the tricks are simple (the heist was just hypnosis - nothing to do with all the billboards and so on).

his tricks are all based on hypnosis, camera trickery/cuts (street magic/ David Blain stuff, often invoves trying a trick ten times and only showing the one time it works out), some word suggestion stuff (usually mixed with hypnosis), and good old fashioned tricks (misdirection, trick boxes etc.)

Hes not that different from other magicians - what seperates his is an, IMO, dangerous abuse of hypnosis, and a great ability to represent tricks as something new, come up with new concepts for well practiced tricks.

This is the best explenation of last nights lottery thing:



> ld say the whole introductory sequence (the walk into the studio) was pre-recorded, despite the C4 Live logo in the corner. The cut to the wide shot, ostensibly to show there was no-one else in the studio, allows them to cut back to live footage as he brings his hands down and - I agree - that match cut is a little out, but not bad at all.
> 
> After that, it's all split screen and shot from a static studio camera. You could have a busload of pensioners juggling lottery balls on the left side of the frame and the viewer wouldn't know.
> 
> ...


----------



## RaverDrew (Sep 10, 2009)

According to Camelot nobody got all 6 numbers right and it's a rollover 

http://www.national-lottery.co.uk/player/lotto/results/prizeBreakdown.ftl


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

also, if he did 55,000 takes, that only leaves another ~14,000,000 number combinations that he couldn't have filmed. like i said, it's not impossible that he filmed 55,000 combinations and got lucky with the final digit but i just don't find it to be a) likely or b) anything like his style


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

ska invita said:


> None of his tricks particularly involve " loads of time and preparation" - thats just the spiel that he gives to me you think hes a mastermind. All the crap about studying law, and spending the last year reading the A to Z is patter. The set-ups may take time (i.e. setting up a heist, the crew etc.), but the tricks are simple (the heist was just hypnosis - nothing to do with all the billboards and so on).
> 
> his tricks are all based on hypnosis, camera trickery/cuts (street magic/ David Blain stuff, often invoves trying a trick ten times and only showing the one time it works out), some word suggestion stuff (usually mixed with hypnosis), and good old fashioned tricks (misdirection, trick boxes etc.)
> 
> Hes not that different from other magicians - what seperates his is an, IMO, dangerous abuse of hypnosis, and a great ability to represent tricks as something new, come up with new concepts for well practiced tricks


when has he ever used camera trickery - and not just in your opinion?


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

strung_out said:


> also, if he did 55,000 takes, that only leaves another ~14,000,000 number combinations that he couldn't have filmed. like i said, it's not impossible that he filmed 55,000 combinations and got lucky with the final digit but i just don't find it to be a) likely or b) anything like his style


put it this way, if he didn't get lucky we wouldn't be discussing this. He wouldn't have gone ahead with the trick. It's the same principle as the medium who chucks out all the info - you only focus on what works. He could decided to spend a few weeks filming it and then chosen a set of numbers and had they not worked the whole project would have been binned.


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

rubbish


----------



## debaser (Sep 10, 2009)

I think thats the one thing he has managed to achieve at least, most people probably assuming he did acctaully just get lucky with that final ball.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

strung_out said:


> rubbish


why is that rubbish? It's exactly the same as the coin flip. Had he not gotten the 10 consecutive flips he would have abandoned the stunt.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> put it this way, if he didn't get lucky we wouldn't be discussing this. He wouldn't have gone ahead with the trick. It's the same principle as the medium who chucks out all the info - you only focus on what works. He could decided to spend a few weeks filming it and then chosen a set of numbers and had they not worked the whole project would have been binned.



What the-


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

you're suggesting he would have abandoned the stunt live on television after saying all week that he was going to predict the lottery numbers?


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

He couldn't know if he'd "got lucky" until the balls were drawn.


----------



## debaser (Sep 10, 2009)

> ld say the whole introductory sequence (the walk into the studio) was pre-recorded, despite the C4 Live logo in the corner. The cut to the wide shot, ostensibly to show there was no-one else in the studio, allows them to cut back to live footage as he brings his hands down and - I agree - that match cut is a little out, but not bad at all.
> 
> After that, it's all split screen and shot from a static studio camera. You could have a busload of pensioners juggling lottery balls on the left side of the frame and the viewer wouldn't know.
> 
> ...



mmmm yeah, its probably this isn't it.. tapping morse code with his foot what the fuck was I thinking


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

strung_out said:


> this 55,000 takes thing is a red herring in my opinion. he did get all 6 numbers correct which was only a 1 in 44 chance of happening had he filmed all those takes. he was always going to get all 6 numbers and the stuff about getting at least 5 numbers just added depth to the whole theatre of the illusion.


I completely agree with this.  There was no luck involved.  Why would there be?  He could easily do the trick getting all six right, so why faff around with a year's worth of tedious filming for the 1-in-44 chance when he could just use a green screen or one of those cunning conjuror's tricks to be certain of getting all six?


----------



## maomao (Sep 10, 2009)

If it had been the 55,000 shots method it would still require a cut and still essentially be a camera trick. He would also have to keep his hair exactly the same length for a year while he made all the shots. Not realistic at all.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

fogbat said:


> We need a kabbes


If you are going to create PRECISELY 55,000 takes for each possible 5-ball combination, then each possible 5-ball combination needs to appear once and only once.  Because otherwise you are going to have to do a hell of a lot more than 55,000 takes.  For example, if you intend to set up each 5-ball combination in turn and then choose a random 6th, you're actually going to have to do COMBIN(49,5) = 1.9million takes.  No, instead you're going to have to choose your 55,000 combinations exceedingly carefully.

So what does that careful choice mean?  Well -- suppose without loss of generality that the numbers drawn were 1,2,3,4,5,6.  You are going to have *only one take* that features "1,2,3,4,5".  (If this isn't the case, you're going to have to have done a hell of a lot more than 55,000 takes -- it will be somewhere up to 1.9million takes.)  And then you're going to have to get lucky that your single take happens to have 6 as the 6th ball.  Which is 1-in-44.

So if he really did do 55,000 takes (which he didn't) then the precision of those choice of those takes will mean that it was a 1-in-44 that the 6th ball was accurate.

I think.


----------



## elevendayempire (Sep 10, 2009)

I'm actually a bit disappointed that his assistant buggered up the placement of the balls - spoiled the magic!


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> If it had been the 55,000 shots method it would still require a cut and still essentially be a camera trick. He would also have to keep his hair exactly the same length for a year while he made all the shots. Not realistic at all.


Exactly.  A camera trick is a camera trick.  If you're going to do a camera trick then make life easy on yourself and do the easy camera trick!


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

ha! so my 1 in 44 was correct then. in your face internetstalker!


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

Wasn't it Derren Brown, incidentally, that did a trick that convinced a kid that he'd stepped into a genuine TARDIS?  But the kid's parents and we, the audience, could see that it was all done with a camera trick?  I don't remember the precise details -- they saw the TARDIS on a camera, apparently saw somebody walk around it, but then when they went into it the room was enormous.  And it was because the image on the camera was pre-recorded.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

kabbes said:


> And I completely agree with this.  There was no luck involved.  Why would there be?  He could easily do the trick getting all six right,



in a single gues yes, but what about the different combinations: 

ie
2,11,23,28,35,
2,11,23,28,39,
2,11,23,35,39,
2,11,28,35,39,
2,23,28,35,39,
11,23,28,35,39,

thats 6 goes to get the 6th number which makes the odds 7.33333 to 1 If I am correct


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

I hope it's something cleverer than just a camera trick


----------



## maomao (Sep 10, 2009)

fogbat said:


> I hope it's something cleverer than just a camera trick



Well I'm assuming it's part of a misdirection for a bigger trick. So maybe. But it was definitely a normal conjuring trick and he didn't know which numbers came out before the draw.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> Well I'm assuming it's part of a misdirection for a bigger trick. So maybe. But it was definitely a normal conjuring trick and *he didn't know which numbers came out before the draw*.



That bit's a given


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

Ye Gods!

Has anyone read the comments on the Daily Mail website regarding this?

There is talk of abomination and devil's work at hand.

Some people really don't seem to get this was a trick and all will be explained tomorrow.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> Well I'm assuming it's part of a misdirection for a bigger trick.


ah well that would be cool maybe i hadn't thought of that.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> in a single gues yes, but what about the different combinations:
> 
> ie
> 2,11,23,28,35,
> ...


No, I think that the only way to achieve all sets of 5 numbers within 55,000 takes is to mix them up, such that all of your above would be combined into a very limited set.  Otherwise it is no different to doing each of the 1.9 million combinations of 5 balls, each of which has a random 6th ball to go with it.  

Basically: you have to somehow get 1.9 million combinations of 5 balls into just 55,000 takes.  You can only do that by putting combinations together to avoid repeats.  But if you avoid repeats, you can only ever have a 1-in-44 chance of the sixth ball being right.


----------



## where to (Sep 10, 2009)

it was a split screen while the numbers came up on the BBC, the left hand side was a frozen still image, which hid the fact that there was someone there fixing the numbers on as they came up.

Brown killed time writing the numbers in order etc then when the other guy had fixed the numbers on they went back to a live shot on both sides.

the camera moving around would not prevent this as there is plenty technology to allow the camera to keep the frozen image on the left.

simple as that


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

kabbes said:


> No, I think that the only way to achieve all sets of 5 numbers within 55,000 takes is to mix them up, such that all of your above would be combined into a very limited set.  Otherwise it is no different to doing each of the 1.9 million combinations of 5 balls, each of which has a random 6th ball to go with it.



I get you!


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

where to said:


> it was a split screen while the numbers came up on the BBC, the left hand side was a frozen still image, which hid the fact that there was someone there fixing the numbers on as they came up.
> 
> Brown killed time writing the numbers in order etc then when the other guy had fixed the numbers on they went back to a live shot on both sides.
> 
> ...


YES we KNOW


----------



## where to (Sep 10, 2009)

should i have read the thread


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

Alright, Internetstalker, I have a prime example for you (even though I now see that you get me but, dammit, I've done the example).

Simplify the numbers.  There are 6 balls and we draw 3.  You are aiming to get 2 right out of 3.  How many takes do you need?

The answer is... just 2 takes!  A take with 123 and another with 456 covers them all!  Here's the code:


```
123	456
123	3	0
124	2	1
125	2	1
126	2	1
134	2	1
135	2	1
136	2	1
145	1	2
146	1	2
156	1	2
234	2	1
235	2	1
236	2	1
245	1	2
246	1	2
256	1	2
345	1	2
346	1	2
356	1	2
456	0	3
```

However, although we were right for 2 balls on 100% of occassions, we were right for 3 balls on just 10% of occassions.  So we only had a 1-in-10 chance of getting "3-out-of-3" lucky.

(This makes me think that actually it might even be a worse than 1-in-44 chance of getting all 6 right.  After all, a similar logic in the 6-ball case would only yield a 1-in-3 rather than 1-in-10!  I've a feeling that it might actually be as low as about 1-in-250)


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

elevendayempire said:


> I'm actually a bit disappointed that his assistant buggered up the placement of the balls - spoiled the magic!


if that's what happened. i don't believe it was a green screen.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Wasn't it Derren Brown, incidentally, that did a trick that convinced a kid that he'd stepped into a genuine TARDIS?  But the kid's parents and we, the audience, could see that it was all done with a camera trick?  I don't remember the precise details -- they saw the TARDIS on a camera, apparently saw somebody walk around it, but then when they went into it the room was enormous.  And it was because the image on the camera was pre-recorded.


No. That was the Real Hustle. The kid was about 8 yo, not really difficult to be convinced when your a) a dr who fan and b) 8.


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> if that's what happened. i don't believe it was a green screen.



you mean his assistant was wearing an invisibility cloak?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> No. That was the Real Hustle. The kid was about 8 yo, not really difficult to be convinced when your a) a dr who fan and b) 8.


Ah yes, so it was.  The Real Hustle is awesome (in small doses, at least).


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

Military sniper with a tiny paintball gun, maybe?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Military sniper with a tiny paintball gun, maybe?




Or possible a gun that fires ping-pong balls.


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 10, 2009)




----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

maomao said:


> Well I'm assuming it's part of a misdirection for a bigger trick. So maybe. But it was definitely a normal conjuring trick and he didn't know which numbers came out before the draw.


the TV and him writing the numbers were misdirection IMO; I just hope not for a runner to fit balls in behind a green screen because that's a crap magic trick. Not even that.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

strung_out said:


> you mean his assistant was wearing an invisibility cloak?


No i mean there's, hopefully, another explanation. As I said, I don't believe he's done camera tricks before.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


>


Invisible stagehand?


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


>



oh yeah


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

Ghosts!


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Ghosts!



a series of enslaved ghosts with promises made of enfreement in return for help in predicting this weeks lottery numbers? ingenious.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

"Enfreement"?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

Incidentally, is nobody going to comment on my awesome 6-ball example?  It took me longer than it probably should have done to come up with that, you know.  I expect garlands and grateful thanks.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

It's a perfectly cromulent word.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 10, 2009)

I haven't got time to comment on everything (work keep wanting me to do work   ), but it really has surprised how many people are willing to claim nearly every aspect of the 10 minutes as fake _except_ his claim that he's been working on it for a year. The whole "55,000 takes would take about a year" thing is largely irrelevant 

I really hope it wasn't a camera trick as, like others have said, it's not really his style, and I honestly just don't think the thousands-of-takes solution is particularly realistic, both in terms of practicality and sheer effort - for one thing he had a run in the West End a few months ago!


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

kabbes said:


> "Enfreement"?



opposite of enslavement.


----------



## D'wards (Sep 10, 2009)

Remember when he did the ten pound note serial number trick thing? Got someone to say numbers randomly, and they were on a ten pound note in his pocket, which was printed and sent to him in a tube somehow - same concept really.


----------



## where to (Sep 10, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


>



now thats magic !!!


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

YouTube -- the death of stage magic


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

strung_out said:


> there is no way he did the 55,000 takes thing. seriously, if he turned round on friday and says 'i spent a year filming 55,000 takes' that takes him away from being an illusion/mind tricks artist, and over into fucking sad bastard territory.



Agreed. No freaking way he did that. You'd notice differences in his hair, facial hair, the lie of his clothes etc. It just didn't happen like that. It's split screened.


----------



## gosub (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Agreed. No freaking way he did that. You'd notice differences in his hair, facial hair, the lie of his clothes etc. It just didn't happen like that. It's split screened.



Would aggree split screen, due to camera shake and waiting til after the bonus ball to say he wasn't interested in the bonus ball (time buyer)


----------



## johnnymarrsbars (Sep 10, 2009)

brilliant




			
				some idiot on the daily mail thread said:
			
		

> This is dangerous.
> 
> Messing about with the supernatural can, and eventually will, result in him unleashing uncontrollable forces which will wreak havoc with his mind, body and soul.
> 
> ...


----------



## smmudge (Sep 10, 2009)

Thing is, he says he spent a year preparing, and he also says we can do it ourselves at home. What could he possibly have done that makes both these true? And how could we do camera trickery at home?

Surely Derren Brown wouldn't just lie to us like that


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

johnnymarrsbars said:


> brilliant



ha. ok i changed my mind, maybe the trick is a little bit cool after all.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 10, 2009)

smmudge said:


> Thing is, he says he spent a year preparing, and he also says we can do it ourselves at home. What could he possibly have done that makes both these true?


 Why on Earth does the first have to be true  The whole "legal issues" has widely been derided, but "I've been working on this for a year" seems to have been taken by the majority as true.

It would be a shame if the second wasn't, as generally he's quite good with audiences and I think genuinely sees the audience, and their reaction/interaction as one of the main reasons for doing what he does.


----------



## Structaural (Sep 10, 2009)

ska invita said:


> This is the best explenation of last nights lottery thing:
> 
> ld say the whole introductory sequence (the walk into the studio) was pre-recorded, despite the C4 Live logo in the corner. The cut to the wide shot, ostensibly to show there was no-one else in the studio, allows them to cut back to live footage as he brings his hands down and - I agree - that match cut is a little out, but not bad at all.
> 
> ...



This, shame to see camera tricks - but then these are more impressive when done live - maybe that's why he'll reveal it, to show he doesn't like them. Check these frame grabs I took.














The first is the last frame before the cut to the long camera, next is the last frame of the long shot and the next is the first frame of the cut back to the 'steadycam' - note the vastly different angle from the first grab - you can see the bottom of the pedestal. The camera man doesn't move perceptibly at all in the long shot (which is also pre-recorded). 

I tried stabilizing to show the ball bounce up slightly - but AE crashed on me when making a gif. sod it, but it's there:


----------



## STFC (Sep 10, 2009)

Lord Camomile said:


> Why on Earth does the first have to be true  The whole "legal issues" has widely been derided, but "I've been working on this for a year" seems to have been taken by the majority as true.
> 
> It would be a shame if the second wasn't, as generally he's quite good with audiences and I think genuinely sees the audience, and their reaction/interaction as one of the main reasons for doing what he does.



He probably has been working on it for a year.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

kabbes said:


> YouTube -- the death of stage magic


or evidence of ghosts!


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 10, 2009)

That long shot would seem to be important, as I don't think it really served any purpose in the 'narrative' of the trick.


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 10, 2009)

STFC said:


> He probably has been working on it for a year.


 It's certainly possible, it just confuses me that with everyone second and third guessing every other element of the trick, that fact seems just to be accepted. I mean, if it was just a (relatively) simple camera trick, would he really need an entire year to perfect it?


----------



## smmudge (Sep 10, 2009)

Lord Camomile said:


> Why on Earth does the first have to be true  The whole "legal issues" has widely been derided, but "I've been working on this for a year" seems to have been taken by the majority as true.
> 
> It would be a shame if the second wasn't, as generally he's quite good with audiences and I think genuinely sees the audience, and their reaction/interaction as one of the main reasons for doing what he does.



He may well have made it up - it certainly encourages us to think he really has 'predicted' the numbers by somehow looking at which numbers have come up previously (although that's bollocks). And perhaps we can't really do it at home (unless we have access to two cameras and a high-tech digital picture enhancement suite) and that was just to make us watch the show tomorrow.

Regardless, whatever he really did will be disappointing. Whether it was camera trickery or recording loads of takes, mirrors or green screen, anything short of him actually predicting 6 numbers correctly prior to the draw, or selling his soul to supernatural powers of black magick, will be disappointing.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

smmudge said:


> He may well have made it up - it certainly encourages us to think he really has 'predicted' the numbers by somehow looking at which numbers have come up previously (although that's bollocks). And perhaps we can't really do it at home (unless we have access to two cameras and a high-tech digital picture enhancement suite) and that was just to make us watch the show tomorrow.
> 
> Regardless, whatever he really did will be disappointing. Whether it was camera trickery or recording loads of takes, mirrors or green screen, anything short of him actually predicting 6 numbers correctly prior to the draw, *or selling his soul to supernatural powers of black magick*, will be disappointing.



If he shows us how to do this at home, I might be interested


----------



## STFC (Sep 10, 2009)

Lord Camomile said:


> It's certainly possible, it just confuses me that with everyone second and third guessing every other element of the trick, that fact seems just to be accepted. I mean, if it was just a (relatively) simple camera trick, would he really need an entire year to perfect it?



It depends on what you think he meant by "working on it for a year". Television shows, even ten minute ones, don't happen overnight. I'm sure a year from conception to execution is realistic.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

He'll only be revealing the simple trick of how it is done in order to bamboozle us with a larger trick that he doesn't explain.  It's his standard shtick, whether it be via the medium horseracing or a chessboard.


----------



## where to (Sep 10, 2009)

smmudge said:


> Thing is, he says he spent a year preparing, and he also says we can do it ourselves at home. What could he possibly have done that makes both these true? And how could we do camera trickery at home?
> 
> Surely Derren Brown wouldn't just lie to us like that



all part of the act, all part of the midleading us he will argue...


----------



## Lord Camomile (Sep 10, 2009)

smmudge said:


> He may well have made it up - it certainly encourages us to think he really has 'predicted' the numbers by somehow looking at which numbers have come up previously (although that's bollocks). And perhaps we can't really do it at home (unless we have access to two cameras and a high-tech digital picture enhancement suite) and that was just to make us watch the show tomorrow.


 See, I just don't think perhaps naively) he's that cynical to use it purely as a marketing tool, especially as he's already got quite a reputation anyway.



STFC said:


> It depends on what you think he meant by "working on it for a year". Television shows, even ten minute ones, don't happen overnight. I'm sure a year from conception to execution is realistic.


Of course it is; again, it's not so much I can't believe it took him a year, just that so many people seem ready to accept that part of the trick as fact while questioning every other aspect.


----------



## 8den (Sep 10, 2009)

I don't think split screen would work. It's fantastically difficult to do live, and very easy to spot. And the hand held camerawork would make that harder not easier.

However the balls never leave the plinth, and are turned away, and are also two tone. What's so impossible about rigging up some kind of fancy LCD displays on each ball. Program the numbers to appear. As mentioned the balls never leave the plinth. So theres a power source, and a way of programming the balls, and it was plain black on white writing.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

Or a simple projection onto the balls, I suppose.


----------



## Structaural (Sep 10, 2009)

8den said:


> I don't think split screen would work. It's fantastically difficult to do live, and very easy to spot. And the hand held camerawork would make that harder not easier.



not a hand-held - it's on tripod, the camera shake is added in realtime, after the split-screen has been blended in.


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

synchronised ants


----------



## STFC (Sep 10, 2009)

Lord Camomile said:


> Of course it is; again, it's not so much I can't believe it took him a year, just that so many people seem ready to accept that part of the trick as fact while questioning every other aspect.



Ah, ok. I get you.

Suppose we just have to wait for tomorrow and see what he says.


----------



## 8den (Sep 10, 2009)

Structaural said:


> not a hand-held - it's on tripod, the camera shake is added in realtime, after the split-screen has been blended in.



Using what package? It'll require the footage to go through two different effects passes 

Secondly. One camera is locked off in the background, the 2nd camera is handheld, and follows Brown as he walks in. 

Adding the shake in artificially is an unnecessary hoop to jump through. Just stick the camera on the steadicam.


----------



## STFC (Sep 10, 2009)

8den said:


> I don't think split screen would work. It's fantastically difficult to do live, and very easy to spot. And the hand held camerawork would make that harder not easier.
> 
> However the balls never leave the plinth, and are turned away, and are also two tone. What's so impossible about rigging up some kind of fancy LCD displays on each ball. Program the numbers to appear. As mentioned the balls never leave the plinth. So theres a power source, and a way of programming the balls, and it was plain black on white writing.



There's a magician's tool that they write on and it sends the writing/image electronically. It's how they do that trick when someone's name appears on a card or banknote or whatever that's been hidden away. He probably used one of those.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

Maybe..._there was no lottery draw?_

am i a fly who dreams he's a man, or a man who dreams he's a fly?


----------



## sleaterkinney (Sep 10, 2009)

There was no need to have the balls, he could have just written it on a piece of paper and given it to somebody. 

Or there could have been someone there to witness it and make sure the balls weren't changed.


----------



## 8den (Sep 10, 2009)

sleaterkinney said:


> There was no need to have the balls, he could have just written it on a piece of paper and given it to somebody.
> 
> Or there could have been someone there to witness it and make sure the balls weren't changed.



Or he could have revealed the numbers beforehand. The claim about "Camelot not allowing him to reveal the numbers before hand". Derren you're not revealing their numbers, you're revealing your prediction on what the numbers could be. There's no fucking law against guessing.

In other news I want Gary Linekar tried as a witch when he gives his prediction on the result before the FA Cup final!


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 10, 2009)

the camera shake did feel unnatural


----------



## STFC (Sep 10, 2009)

8den said:


> *Or he could have revealed the numbers beforehand.* The claim about "Camelot not allowing him to reveal the numbers before hand". Derren you're not revealing their numbers, you're revealing your prediction on what the numbers could be. There's no fucking law against guessing.
> 
> In other news I want Gary Linekar tried as a witch when he gives his prediction on the result before the FA Cup final!



No, he couldn't.


----------



## ouchmonkey (Sep 10, 2009)

smmudge said:


> Regardless, whatever he really did will be disappointing. Whether it was camera trickery or recording loads of takes, mirrors or green screen, anything short of him actually predicting 6 numbers correctly prior to the draw, or selling his soul to supernatural powers of black magick, will be disappointing.



but it's a big part of his thing that there is no supernatural element, it is just an illusion, doesn't mean it's not impressive



kabbes said:


> He'll only be revealing the simple trick of how it is done in order to bamboozle us with a larger trick that he doesn't explain.  It's his standard shtick, whether it be via the medium horseracing or a chessboard.



absolutely has to be, if this was the grand finale it'd have been at the end of a show where he did a bunch of other prediction illusions and stuff with maths and numbers leading up to it wouldn't it?



8den said:


> Or he could have revealed the numbers beforehand. The claim about "Camelot not allowing him to reveal the numbers before hand". Derren you're not revealing their numbers, you're revealing your prediction on what the numbers could be. There's no fucking law against guessing.



once again, I shall type very s l o w l y

it is not a *prediction*
it is not a *guess*

*it is a trick*


----------



## The Octagon (Sep 10, 2009)

8den said:


> Or he could have revealed the numbers beforehand. The claim about "Camelot not allowing him to reveal the numbers before hand". Derren you're not revealing their numbers, you're revealing your prediction on what the numbers could be. There's no fucking law against guessing.
> 
> In other news I want Gary Linekar tried as a witch when he gives his prediction on the result before the FA Cup final!



He could have done, but he didn't know what the numbers were going to be until they came out in the draw, so he'd have probably got it spectacularly wrong and ruined his career.

Derren Brown = Illusionist, not fucking psychic.


----------



## ouchmonkey (Sep 10, 2009)

The Octagon said:


> Derren Brown = Illusionist, not fucking psychic.



he would contend that they are illusionists too, that he can do what they do (because 'psychic powers' are not real) and by that token you could say he was psychic not that he'd be best pleased about it.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 10, 2009)

Structaural said:


> The first is the last frame before the cut to the long camera, next is the last frame of the long shot and the next is the first frame of the cut back to the 'steadycam' - note the vastly different angle from the first grab - you can see the bottom of the pedestal. The camera man doesn't move perceptibly at all in the long shot (which is also pre-recorded).



I am willing to think it's camera tricks but (speaking as a camera man) it would only of taken the tiniest of moves to get the pedestal bottom in shot and a little zoom. All far too little to be clearly picked up in the long shot.


----------



## smmudge (Sep 10, 2009)

ouchmonkey said:


> but it's a big part of his thing that there is no supernatural element, it is just an illusion, doesn't mean it's not impressive



Well it's already impressive. Not how he did the trick itself - that's irrelevant. It's that nobody seems to have any fucking idea how he did it. That's impressive.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

Oh, we have *ideas* as to how he did it.  Doesn't mean those ideas are right or even in any way practical, but we're all about the *ideas*.


----------



## Asriel (Sep 10, 2009)

Just found this, split-screen with camera movement, also, anyone notice when he's writing the number down, a couple of times it looks as if he's pressing something on the top of the board.


----------



## ouchmonkey (Sep 10, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Oh, we have *ideas* as to how he did it.  Doesn't mean those ideas are right or even in any way practical, but we're all about the *ideas*.



I don't.
55,000 takes is ridiculous
and I don't want to believe it's a simple camera trick 'cos 
A - that'd be shit and
B - Paul Daniels and others seem to think it's an old trick that can be done on stage and that kind of rules out fancy hi-tech camera shenanigans for me.
(although I concede that'd probably be the easiest way to do it)
C - I think it's a set up, lead in to other stuff on friday, maybe he's already programmed us all to go mental and bring about the end of civilisation as we know it over the weekend


----------



## N_igma (Sep 10, 2009)

foo said:


> a woman i work with thinks Derren's been 'touched by the hand of god'





The most plausible explanation yet imho.


----------



## moon23 (Sep 10, 2009)

You can see how Derren Brown works though with some things. One trick he blindfolded himself and got led somewhere secret that turned out to be the houses of parliment. Then with his back turned to the building he asked someone to look at it whilst he was going to stare at them and draw it down. 

It was fairly obvious he was drawing it from the refelection in their eyes, and sure enougth he even admitted "Oh i've got it all right, but back to front". 

It is clever and he is highly skilled at reading micro-facial expressions, but they are just tricks. I've had someone like that read a card from my facial expression. First time he said hold it up and I thought of another card, other than the one held up and he guessed the one I was thinking off. I think he can read quite quickly how subjectable people are and what they give away and adapts what trick he is going to use on what person.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

N_igma said:


> The most plausible explanation yet imho.



There was a poster on here a couple of years ago who vehemently insisted that Derren actually was psychic, and was only fooling himself


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 10, 2009)

This has just reminded me that a friend I worked with did camera shake split screen and computer graphics on a very cheap camera (and his home computer) over 12 years ago. 

Mind you he has gone a bit further now. (I have not seen him for years but just googled).


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 10, 2009)

I can't read all this, has this been posted yet:









Fwiw, that coffee cup in the foreground (of the wider shot) is there for a reason, I presume to attract the eye.


----------



## Structaural (Sep 10, 2009)

8den said:


> Using what package? It'll require the footage to go through two different effects passes
> 
> Secondly. One camera is locked off in the background, the 2nd camera is handheld, and follows Brown as he walks in.
> 
> Adding the shake in artificially is an unnecessary hoop to jump through. Just stick the camera on the steadicam.



A myriad of packages (realtime stuff is  these days) or a custom job (maybe took a year to setup , it's hardly a massive effects load - they're working with a perfectly still tripod shot to blend the frozen left side, followed by fake steadycam effect).

The 2nd camera is only there to allow the cut to the live feed and allow the 'empty' room to be shown. It's never cut to again.

@ Atomic - my missus used be a camera woman, it was her who reckoned the subsequent steadycam footage looked a bit unnatural.

Anyway it's only conjecture init.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> I can't read all this, has this been posted yet:


Yes.


----------



## Structaural (Sep 10, 2009)

Asriel said:


> Just found this, split-screen with camera movement, also, anyone notice when he's writing the number down, a couple of times it looks as if he's pressing something on the top of the board.



heh missed that


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 10, 2009)

And it was explained?


----------



## Structaural (Sep 10, 2009)

So you all missed the gorilla then?


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> I can't read all this, has this been posted yet:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What am I supposed to be looking at?

Apart from the same shot twice?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> And it was explained?


It was explained as probably showing the result of a runner switching the balls and not positioning it properly.  If you call that an explanation.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> What am I supposed to be looking at?
> 
> Apart from the same shot twice?



The ball on the left moves up a tad


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

Asriel said:


> Just found this, split-screen with camera movement, also, anyone notice when he's writing the number down, a couple of times it looks as if he's pressing something on the top of the board.



TBF thats pretty good

most probably how he done it seeing it done like that

him writing out the numbers was just buying the time


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 10, 2009)

8den said:


> I don't think split screen would work. It's fantastically difficult to do live, and very easy to spot. And the hand held camerawork would make that harder not easier.



How about this then. 

Camera on steadycam walks in and stands just beside another locked off camera. The real steady cam is always in front of or beside the locked off (fake steadycam) so you don't see it in vision. 

Cut to a wide shot that is also locked off with a live DB on the right but a split screen showing a previously shot steady cam man (and not locked off camera) standing alone in the room with Brown.

Cuts back to the steady cam shot, only this time is not the steady cam, it is the hidden locked off camera with the split screen.

The locked off split screen camera (including the split screen) goes though a fake computerized steady cam effect to appear as if it is still a steady cam shot. This also helps to disguise the split screen. 

Easy.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> The ball on the left moves up a tad



As if by magic?


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

8den said:


> and very easy to spot.



not with a shaky camera and brick background


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 10, 2009)

kabbes said:


> It was explained as probably showing the result of a runner switching the balls and not positioning it properly.  If you call that an explanation.


Thank you.

It would be really shit if this was just a matter of a split screen. It wouldn't even be of the saw-her-in-half quality of magic.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

I'm guessing that the true spectacle is yet to come though.  Leave them with a big finale and all that.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 10, 2009)

I see, the big reveal might be the big finale. Makes sense.

I've just discovered he's from Croydon. Could  he make it disappear, I wonder . . .


----------



## STFC (Sep 10, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> Thank you.
> 
> It would be really shit if this was just a matter of a split screen. It wouldn't even be of the saw-her-in-half quality of magic.



Yeah, he's better than that.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> I see, the big reveal might be the big finale. Makes sense.
> 
> I've just discovered he's from Croydon. Could  he make it disapear, I wonder . . .


I think he already has.  Certainly it seems to be just a hole...


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

London_Calling said:


>




Well I'm sold on this theory


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 10, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> I see, the big reveal might be the big finale. Makes sense.
> 
> I've just discovered he's from Croydon. Could  he make it disappear, I wonder . . .


----------



## STFC (Sep 10, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> Well I'm sold on this theory



What is it? I can't view You Tube.


----------



## N_igma (Sep 10, 2009)

STFC said:


> What is it? I can't view You Tube.



The ghost theory.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 10, 2009)

I like that "The creep that stole Croydon" - 15p earth money.


----------



## foo (Sep 10, 2009)

have you lot figured it out yet?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

foo said:


> have you lot figured it out yet?


I think it's pretty clear that he just got lucky.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I think it's pretty clear that he just got lucky.



yeh it's like 6 numbers so it was a 1 in 6 chance and if he got it wrong he would just have cancelled the show and then used his mind power to make us forget it ever happened, as a matter of fact he might already have done this 5 times so the 6th time it was bound to work.


----------



## foo (Sep 10, 2009)

i love how people forgot what happened in that show (the one before the lottery trick). 

you lot are trying to figure it out properly aren't you and i'm probably getting in the way with my inane ramblings. 

one more thing...

he's dead sexy imo.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 10, 2009)

foo said:


> i love how people forgot what happened in that show (the one before the lottery trick).
> 
> you lot are trying to figure it out properly aren't you and i'm probably getting in the way with my inane ramblings.
> 
> ...



you've got no chance


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

I think foo's mind control powers would overwhelm Derren's, leaving him helpless in her hands.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 10, 2009)

have your say
http://derrenbrownlotteryprediction.wordpress.com/


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> have your say
> http://derrenbrownlotteryprediction.wordpress.com/



"Theory 6 – Time Travel
September 10, 2009

Derren is a time traveller. Everyone knows this consider this a warning, soon he will take over the world and make us all his minions."


----------



## where to (Sep 10, 2009)

i think if you watch the series advert again it almost confirms the split-screen "misdirection" approach.  also not the advert is using similar camera trickery technology


----------



## nuffsaid (Sep 10, 2009)

Well my boss reckons the balls are light sensitive in some way and as the numbers are produced by camelot a UV (or infa-red light) is shone onto the balls (the numbers are slightly at an angle so that a laser projector would be above and out of shot), the balls are then imprinted with the numbers just before Derren (Daren) reveals his balls.

My two-penneth...


----------



## N_igma (Sep 10, 2009)

nuffsaid said:


> just before Derren (Daren) reveals his balls.



Who what where in the when how?


----------



## terrythomas (Sep 10, 2009)

I think the numbers that he had on the balls aren't the same as the ones that came out in the draw and he has hypnotised the entire nation into thinking they are the same.  On Friday he'll unbrainwash us all and show us what really happened not what we think we saw.  Or something.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 10, 2009)

fogbat said:


> "Theory 6 – Time Travel
> September 10, 2009
> 
> Derren is a time traveller. Everyone knows this consider this a warning, soon he will take over the world and make us all his minions."



I can think of worse people to be a minion too!

So - as I missed all this excitement and I am too lazy read all the thread and I can't access youtube at work - he predicted the lottery numbers correctly and will tell us all how he did it tomorrow?


----------



## where to (Sep 10, 2009)

i've just noticed that the camera stays still for a few seconds just before Derren turns off the telly and goes over the balls.  this would be just as his assistant walks aways from the balls and the split screen still shot is replaced by full live feed...


----------



## STFC (Sep 10, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I can think of worse people to be a minion too!
> 
> So - as I missed all this excitement and I am too lazy read all the thread and I can't access youtube at work - he predicted the lottery numbers correctly and will tell us all how he did it tomorrow?



Not quite. He made people believe that he predicted the lottery numbers correctly and he says he will reveal how tomorrow.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I can think of worse people to be a minion too!
> 
> So - as I missed all this excitement and I am too lazy read all the thread and I can't access youtube at work - he predicted the lottery numbers correctly and will tell us all how he did it tomorrow?


Not quite.  He told us that he had predicted the lottery numbers, then after the draw he showed us what he had apparently predicted.  The trick, obviously, was how he managed to get the correct numbers onto the "pad" (the "pad" was actually some balls, but you get the idea).


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> have your say
> http://derrenbrownlotteryprediction.wordpress.com/


I think it was immigrants.


----------



## N_igma (Sep 10, 2009)

Zionist conspiracy theory.


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 10, 2009)

It does all look like a camera trick, and if it is I have to say I'm not terribly impressed this time Mr Brown.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 10, 2009)

STFC said:


> Not quite. He made people believe that he predicted the lottery numbers correctly and he says he will reveal how tomorrow.





kabbes said:


> Not quite.  He told us that he had predicted the lottery numbers, then after the draw he showed us what he had apparently predicted.  The trick, obviously, was how he managed to get the correct numbers onto the "pad" (the "pad" was actually some balls, but you get the idea).



Ta - I will try and catch the denoument tomorrow


----------



## ouchmonkey (Sep 10, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> It does all look like a camera trick, and if it is I have to say I'm not terribly impressed this time Mr Brown.



likewise. that'd be so so lame.


wags finger at Derren


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 10, 2009)

it's magic


----------



## foo (Sep 10, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I think foo's mind control powers would overwhelm Derren's, leaving him helpless in her hands.



i wish. 

but as Orang says i've got no chance cos Derren's gay isn't he?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 10, 2009)

Don't doubt your powers now, foo.


----------



## foo (Sep 10, 2009)

i may be crass but even i wouldn't suggest i could 'turn' a gay man.

i hate women who say that anyway. well not hate them, i hate them saying it.


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

i hate them too


----------



## Asriel (Sep 10, 2009)

After calling the numbers, Brown told viewers he would show them how he did the trick in another programme on Friday night - How To Win The Lottery - but insiders warned people not to get their hopes up too much.

A source said: "Derren will be talking through a number of ways he might have pulled off his most ambitious stunt to date, but in true Derren style, he won't be giving too much away.

"He will be giving hints how he might have done it, but you won't get the full story."


----------



## STFC (Sep 10, 2009)

What a swizz!


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

There's no green screen, he just counted all the balls that have come out before to work out which ones were gonna come out this time. Easy.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 10, 2009)

where to said:


> i've just noticed that the camera stays still for a few seconds just before Derren turns off the telly and goes over the balls.  this would be just as his assistant walks aways from the balls and the split screen still shot is replaced by full live feed...



No. That wouldn't help at all because if the camera was really shaking and there was a split screen they would have to stop in exactly the right place which is nye on impossible. I still think it is split screen but look back at my post on the last page to see how easy it would be. 

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9677371&postcount=460

For some reason my perfectly easy live solution seems to have been ignored. It's so easy, I could set this up tomorrow if I had to.


----------



## foo (Sep 10, 2009)

it must be really nerve-wracking to be Derren's other half...


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> No. That wouldn't help at all because if the camera was really shaking and there was a split screen they would have to stop in exactly the right place which is nye on impossible. I still think it is split screen but look back at my post on the last page to see how easy it would be.
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=9677371&postcount=460
> 
> For some reason my perfectly easy live solution seems to have been ignored. It's so easy, I could set this up tomorrow if I had to.



It's not as easy as working out which numbers it was gonna be by crossing off all the ones that have come out in the last few weeks.


----------



## foo (Sep 10, 2009)

sexytime with Derren must be fraught with dangers and all kinds of wierd shit. 

did someone answer about that nodding thing? is it a tic?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> It's not as easy as working out which numbers it was gonna be by crossing off all the ones that have come out in the last few weeks.



eh?


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

Apparently it's an involuntary tic, yes.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> eh?


It's gonna be the ones that haven't come out for a while, innit? Or the ones that have come out a lot lately. Either way, piece of piss. I don't play it cos it's for idiots, wouldn't be fair if I played.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 10, 2009)

i can't work out if you're joking or not!


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

Take a wild guess


----------



## foo (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Apparently it's an involuntary tic, yes.



thank you cliche, i thought i was musing in a vacum there....

how d'you spell vacum?


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> It's gonna be the ones that haven't come out for a while, innit? Or the ones that have come out a lot lately. Either way, piece of piss. I don't play it cos it's for idiots, wouldn't be fair if I played.



I know you are joking but...

1,2,3,4,5,6 could come out every week.

The balls have no memory.

Why are people getting so worked up about a simple (though how he done it, and he will tell us on Friday) trick?

You should read some of the comments on the Daily Mail boards in relation to this story!


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

With another 'u', I think. Vacuum?


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> 1,2,3,4,5,6 could come out every week.



What are the chances of that!!??!?!one!


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> With another 'u', I think. Vacuum?



I think it's spelt Hoover.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> What are the chances of that!!??!?!one!



The same as the other 14 million combinations!

Really, are people listening at the back?


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> The same as the other 14 million combinations!
> 
> Really, are people listening at the back?



no way, there is like no chance of 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 coming out! just think how weird it would seem


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

rutabowa said:


> no way, there is like no chance of 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 coming out! just think how weird it would seem



Think how weird it would seem if 7, 15, 27, 29, 35 and 43 came out.


----------



## foo (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> I think it's spelt Hoover.





ta cliche - i can see you lot are being all serious an that. so i'll bugger off forthwith. 

i'll be back after his show on Friday.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Apparently it's an involuntary tic, yes.



I reckon he's making it up - as part of some longer term trick that he will pull off in about 30 years time. Like on The Prestige.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Think how weird it would seem if 7, 15, 27, 29, 35 and 43 came out.


no they are normal numbers, they're not weird

in fact i might use those next time i enter, they sound likely.


----------



## Corax (Sep 10, 2009)

Can't believe people are taken in by this shit.

All he proved is he's been putting the lottery numbers drawn for a year or so into a spreadsheet and calculated the probabilities.  Big whoop.


----------



## smmudge (Sep 10, 2009)

Asriel said:


> After calling the numbers, Brown told viewers he would show them how he did the trick in another programme on Friday night - How To Win The Lottery - but insiders warned people not to get their hopes up too much.
> 
> A source said: "Derren will be talking through a number of ways he might have pulled off his most ambitious stunt to date, but in true Derren style, he won't be giving too much away.
> 
> "He will be giving hints how he might have done it, but you won't get the full story."



Oh what. If he's not going to tell us outright I don't think I'll bother watching tbh.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

Corax said:


> Can't believe people are taken in by this shit.
> 
> All he proved is he's been putting the lottery numbers drawn for a year or so into a spreadsheet and calculated the probabilities.  Big whoop.



Oi, I'm playing idiot here.


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

foo said:


> how d'you spell vacum?



HOOVER


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

Corax said:


> Can't believe people are taken in by this shit.
> 
> All he proved is he's been putting the lottery numbers drawn for a year or so into a spreadsheet and calculated the probabilities.  Big whoop.



*slaps Corax*

No, it's a trick!

If it was that easy, don't you think someone else would have thought of that by now and rather than make a programme for Channel 4, employ the system, enter El Grando in Spain and live on some Island somewhere with evil minions?

e2a: or are you taking the piss? 

Bloody internet and it's facelessness.


----------



## Corax (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Oi, I'm playing idiot here.



Why resort to abuse?  Let me guess - you failed maths huh?


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

Miserably.


----------



## Corax (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> If it was that easy, don't you think someone else would have thought of that by now and rather than make a programme for Channel 4, employ the system, enter El Grando in Spain and live on some Island somewhere with evil minions?



Gambling's bound by strict legislation that prevents that kind of thing in the same way that card-counting in casinos is illegal.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 10, 2009)

Corax said:


> Can't believe people are taken in by this shit.
> 
> All he proved is he's been putting the lottery numbers drawn for a year or so into a spreadsheet and calculated the probabilities.  Big whoop.




or are you serious?


----------



## N_igma (Sep 10, 2009)

You're all idiots.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Miserably.



Try taking it again.

According to the papers, if you can correctly put your name in the space provided you get a 'C' in GCSE maths!


----------



## Corax (Sep 10, 2009)

N_igma said:


> You're all idiots.



That's what I'm *trying* to tell them.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

Corax said:


> Gambling's bound by strict legislation that prevents that kind of thing in the same way that card-counting in casinos is illegal.



i think there was a case where someone won 2 lotteries in a row and they got caught for it, think they got jailed. of course some people are probably cleverer than that and enter different lotteries stc.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 10, 2009)

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but have we all agreed how he did it yet?


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

Corax said:


> That's what I'm *trying* to tell them.



Eh?

We know it was a trick.

We just have to wait till tomorrow until he tells us how he did it.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

I'm gonna start a big spreadsheet and this time next year I'l win. 

So can anyone tell me the equation I'd use? Add up all the numbers and divide by the amount of draws?


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> I'm gonna start a big spreadsheet and this time next year I'l win.
> 
> So can anyone tell me the equation I'd use? Add up all the numbers and divide by the amount of draws?



ha i'm not derren brown how would i know!


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

Vintage Paw said:


> I haven't read the whole thread yet, but have we all agreed how he did it yet?


He knew which numbers it was gonna be cos they hadn't been out to play for a while. Obvious when you think about it.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> I'm gonna start a big spreadsheet and this time next year I'l win.
> 
> So can anyone tell me the equation I'd use? Add up all the numbers and divide by the amount of draws?



Balls have no memory.


----------



## Corax (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Eh?
> 
> We know it was a trick.
> 
> We just have to wait till tomorrow until he tells us how he did it.



How he did it is *FUCKING OBVIOUS.*

It's astounding how no one on Urban seems to have the faintest clue how probability works.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Balls have no memory.



Yeah but they aren't gonna come out twice in a row are they? What are the chances of that? Obviously it was some balls turn.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 10, 2009)

Corax said:


> How he did it is *FUCKING OBVIOUS.*
> 
> It's astounding how no one on Urban seems to have the faintest clue how probability works.



i hope you're joking. i really do.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Yeah but they aren't gonna come out twice in a row are they? What are the chances of that? Obviously it was some balls turn.



yep the same balls will never come up twice in a row, and 123456 will never come up... apart from that i guess it's almost random.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> He knew which numbers it was gonna be cos they hadn't been out to play for a while. Obvious when you think about it.



 I've read backwards as far as that little nugget 

Blah blah split screen blah blah.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

I'm not sure who I should be taking seriously here.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 10, 2009)

rutabowa said:


> yep the same balls will never come up twice in a row, and 123456 will never come up



654321 will never come up either


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> 654321 will never come up either



or 2, 5, 17, 23, 28, 38.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

oh yeh i forgot 654321


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> or 2, 5, 17, 23, 28, 38.


um why wouldn't that one come up?


----------



## N_igma (Sep 10, 2009)

rutabowa said:


> um why wouldn't that one come up?



Last nights hoax iirc.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

rutabowa said:


> um why wouldn't that one come up?



It's exactly as likely to come up as 1,2,3,4,5,6.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

Corax said:


> How he did it is *FUCKING OBVIOUS.*
> 
> It's astounding how no one on Urban seems to have the faintest clue how probability works.



I am astounded that people are taking Corax as seriously as Mr Brown!

What was the quote?

You can fool people most of the time... or something?


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 10, 2009)

anyway i'm done educating here peace out


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> It's exactly as likely to come up as 1,2,3,4,5,6.



no it isn't
123456 would never come up - that would be far too freaky


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

ROFL.

Some of you should have to wear signs.


----------



## Corax (Sep 10, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> 654321 will never come up either





cliche guevara said:


> or 2, 5, 17, 23, 28, 38.



You're missing the point.  *Any* of the numbers could come up if their probability points towards it.  If you know that flipping a coin 100 times will give you 50 heads and 50 tails, and you flip 50 heads, you know with *100%* certainty that the next time will be a tail.

Of course, it's more complicated with 49 numbers instead of just heads and tails.  But all DB's done is wait until a point where the numbers have all been drawn a number of times that means that there are only 6 remaining possibilities that have to be drawn according to the laws of probability.  Like I said, big fucking whoop.


----------



## N_igma (Sep 10, 2009)

Do you reckon the odds of 123456 coming up are greater or smaller than 654321?


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> no it isn't
> 123456 would never come up - that would be far too freaky



Stop it now, people will take you seriously.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

Corax said:


> You're missing the point.  *Any* of the numbers could come up if their probability points towards it.  If you know that flipping a coin 100 times will give you 50 heads and 50 tails, and you flip 50 heads, you know with *100%* certainty that the next time will be a tail.
> 
> Of course, it's more complicated with 49 numbers instead of just heads and tails.  But all DB's done is wait until a point where the numbers have all been drawn a number of times that means that there are only 6 remaining possibilities that have to be drawn according to the laws of probability.  Like I said, big fucking whoop.



You stop it too. It's not fair on the simpletons.


----------



## N_igma (Sep 10, 2009)

Corax said:


> You're missing the point.  *Any* of the numbers could come up if their probability points towards it.  If you know that flipping a coin 100 times will give you 50 heads and 50 tails, and you flip 50 heads, you know with *100%* certainty that the next time will be a tail.
> 
> Of course, it's more complicated with 49 numbers instead of just heads and tails.  But all DB's done is wait until a point where the numbers have all been drawn a number of times that means that there are only 6 remaining possibilities that have to be drawn according to the laws of probability.  Like I said, big fucking whoop.



Genius.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

N_igma said:


> Do you reckon the odds of 123456 coming up are greater or smaller than 654321?



The numbers only go up to 49


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

Corax said:


> You're missing the point.  *Any* of the numbers could come up if their probability points towards it.  If you know that flipping a coin 100 times will give you 50 heads and 50 tails, and you flip 50 heads, you know with *100%* certainty that the next time will be a tail.
> 
> Of course, it's more complicated with 49 numbers instead of just heads and tails.  But all DB's done is wait until a point where the numbers have all been drawn a number of times that means that there are only 6 remaining possibilities that have to be drawn according to the laws of probability.  Like I said, big fucking whoop.



Someone always has to spoil it for the rest us. 

There is no point watching C4 tomorrow now.


----------



## N_igma (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> The numbers only go up to 49



Not in China they don't.


----------



## foo (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> What was the quote?
> 
> You can fool people most of the time... or something?



you lot can certainly fool foo most of the time.

i'm in awe of your brains...or your bullshit.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 10, 2009)

Well, my first (and only) thought was the film The Sting, don't know if it's been proposed as a solution, I'm just in from work and you fuckers have done 10 pages since I last looked.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 10, 2009)

N_igma said:


> Do you reckon the odds of 123456 coming up are greater or smaller than 654321?



i think they're slightly less likely


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

some people are just much better at guessing than others. my friend guessed heads or tails correctly 10 times in a row once but then i guessed and i got it wrong first time. you guys are making it way too complicated, all this maths and probablys and stuff. he's just really good at guessing, and of course a little bit lucky too!


----------



## Corax (Sep 10, 2009)

I'm a crap troll.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 10, 2009)

strung_out said:


> some people are just much better at guessing than others. my friend guessed heads or tails correctly 10 times in a row once but then i guessed and i got it wrong first time. you guys are making it way too complicated, all this maths and probablys and stuff. he's just really good at guessing, and of course a little bit lucky too!



^^^This. Definitely.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

Corax said:


> How he did it is *FUCKING OBVIOUS.*
> 
> It's astounding how no one on Urban seems to have the faintest clue how probability works.


Not so obvious that you can explain though.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

Asriel said:


> After calling the numbers, Brown told viewers he would show them how he did the trick in another programme on Friday night - How To Win The Lottery - but insiders warned people not to get their hopes up too much.
> 
> A source said: "Derren will be talking through a number of ways he might have pulled off his most ambitious stunt to date, but in true Derren style, he won't be giving too much away.
> 
> "He will be giving hints how he might have done it, but you won't get the full story."


If that's true then it's not so much misdirection as blatant bullshit as he said he would explain how he did the trick, not an OJ style 'how i might have done it'.

This is just getting shitter by the minute really.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> If that's true then it's not so much misdirection as blatant bullshit as he said he would explain how he did the trick, not an OJ style 'how i might have done it'.
> 
> This is just getting shitter by the minute really.



Oh, lighten up! 

It's all a bit of fun, which as a showman, he seems to be a master of.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Think how weird it would seem if 7, 15, 27, 29, 35 and 43 came out.


No! One of those numbers is two digits away from my birthday! Spooky!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 10, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Oh, lighten up!
> 
> It's all a bit of fun, which as a showman, he seems to be a master of.


we'll see. But all signs point to crappy camera trick. 

Or genuine prescience


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 10, 2009)

strung_out said:


> some people are just much better at guessing than others. my friend guessed heads or tails correctly 10 times in a row once ...




Reheheally?


----------



## Corax (Sep 10, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> Not so obvious that you can explain though.



I think you missed post #569.


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

DexterTCN said:


> Reheheally?



you saying i'm a liar?


----------



## DRINK? (Sep 10, 2009)

I heard he was going to challenge mystic meg to a mind fight on a live television special, but it is in fact a clever distraction from his real dastardly plan of overpowering and inseminating the unsuspecting meg with his dark sperm and utilise her mystical womb to breed the ultimate psychic medium telekinetic jesus brainchild who he will train in super mind powers and eventually use to destroy his arch enemy Uri (friend of michael jackson) Geller....dunno whether its true or not


----------



## fogbat (Sep 10, 2009)

Some people are just naturally good at guessing, as strung_out explained.

I'm not saying they're psychic, exactly. Their minds are just really good at connecting with various mystical energies. If you understood quantum theory, you'd understand.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 10, 2009)

strung_out said:


> you saying i'm a liar?


Not at all...I'm just expressing surprise that your friehehend showed something that was 1024 to one odds and that the simpler suggestion is that he conned you.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 10, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Some people are just naturally good at guessing, as strung_out explained.
> 
> I'm not saying they're psychic, exactly. Their minds are just really good at connecting with various mystical energies. If you understood quantum theory, you'd understand.



I do and I do. 


Are we getting a *nods head sagely* smiley? 



Anyway I did not have access to a telly or internet last night and missed this.  What happened?


----------



## strung out (Sep 10, 2009)

DexterTCN said:


> Not at all...I'm just expressing surprise that your friehehend showed something that was 1024 to one odds and that the simpler suggestion is that he conned you.



nah, he's just really good at guessing. trust me.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

Whilst we're on a tangent, I hear that apparently it is quite possible to learn to flip a coin with 100% accuracy*.  This would be a really useful trick.  I'd never have to do a chore around the house again.


*And not just by making it turn only once either.


----------



## D'wards (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Whilst we're on a tangent, I hear that apparently it is quite possible to learn to flip a coin with 100% accuracy*.  This would be a really useful trick.  I'd never have to do a chore around the house again.
> 
> 
> *And not just by making it turn only once either.



Yeah, my pal can do this - its all to do with muscle memory and that sort of thing - you can flick it with the same strength and height if you practice it enough.

Derren done it into a bowl though, harder cos you are not catching it


----------



## Structaural (Sep 11, 2009)

D'wards said:


> Yeah, my pal can do this - its all to do with muscle memory and that sort of thing - you can flick it with the same strength and height if you practice it enough.
> 
> Derren done it into a bowl though, harder cos you are not catching it



According to some site I read last week there's a 1% chance of it coming down on the same side that was up when flipped. Which ain't bad odds.

linky


----------



## Brinxmat (Sep 11, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> Think how weird it would seem if 7, 15, 27, 29, 35 and 43 came out.



Hey! Those are my numbers - get your own


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 11, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Some people are just naturally good at guessing, as strung_out explained.
> 
> I'm not saying they're psychic, exactly. Their minds are just really good at connecting with various mystical energies. If you understood quantum theory, you'd understand.


do you?


----------



## fogbat (Sep 11, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> do you?



I think my referring to "mystical energies" makes it perfectly clear that I do, thank you very much.


----------



## strung out (Sep 11, 2009)

i'd put it slightly differently fogbat. rather than refer to 'mystical energies' (and let's be frank here, who really believes in that?), modern day psychics are not really in touch with the powers of mysticism, rather, they just have a highly developed sense of guesswork. obviously this is something you can train, but you need to have a propensity for it in the first place. what derren brown (and other 'mystics') are doing is using this natural talent for guessing at a very advanced level which not many of us can get our heads round.

it's not that 'mysticism' and metaphysical energies don't exist, but modern day science has proved that it isn't supernatural at all, just the training of the mind in a very real sense to the extent of performing feats that may well in the olden days have been seen as witchcraft!


----------



## fogbat (Sep 11, 2009)

strung_out said:


> i'd put it slightly differently fogbat. rather than refer to 'mystical energies' (and let's be frank here, who really believes in that?), modern day psychics are not really in touch with the powers of mysticism, rather, they just have a highly developed sense of guesswork. obviously this is something you can train, but you need to have a propensity for it in the first place. what derren brown (and other 'mystics') are doing is using this natural talent for guessing at a very advanced level which not many of us can get our heads round.



Quantum physics is definitely involved in it, somewhere along the way


----------



## fogbat (Sep 11, 2009)

Also, I meant to spell it "mystickal".


----------



## tommers (Sep 11, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Also, I meant to spell it "mystickal".



Wasn't that the band alesha dixon was in?  Scandalous, you're dangerous, a one night stand just ain't enouuughhhh!


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

tommers said:


> Wasn't that the band alesha dixon was in?  Scandalous, you're dangerous, a one night stand just ain't enouuughhhh!



I don't know but she was evidently singing about foggers.


----------



## Brinxmat (Sep 11, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> Balls have no memory.



Oh, I don't know.

Mine flinch everytime my wife has a football at her feet...

I thang yew.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I don't know but she was evidently singing about foggers.


----------



## Brinxmat (Sep 11, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> or 2, 5, 17, 23, 28, 38.



Stop doing that.

Those are my Wednesday numbers. I don't want to share the jackpot.

*actually, they are bloody close this time...so seriously, stop putting up what you think are random numbers. This is spooking me*


----------



## teecee (Sep 11, 2009)

a snowflake, wtf??

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/video/2009/sep/10/derren-brown-lottery-trailer


I think the most plausible theories on here so far are the probability ones as we all know 1,2,3,4,5,6 will never come up so logically some combination must be more probably than others. Clearly I'm not as clever as some of you but now lets see you explain all that using the medium of snowflakes - or is the snowflake merely a misdirection, a cunning ruse to dupe us or is it just some surreal flipping of the bird to all the internet theorist trying to debunk his trick.

or is it just a Christmas bauble?

Or some kind of Maltese cross , hinting perhaps at a more sinister solution


----------



## strung out (Sep 11, 2009)

maybe cliche has got a highly developed sense of guess too


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 11, 2009)

teecee said:


> a snowflake, wtf??
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/video/2009/sep/10/derren-brown-lottery-trailer
> 
> ...




it's a well known fact that 1,2,3,4,5,6 CAN come up but not in order and 4 would have to be the bonus ball


----------



## fogbat (Sep 11, 2009)

teecee said:


> a snowflake, wtf??
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/video/2009/sep/10/derren-brown-lottery-trailer
> 
> ...



Are we still doing the playing stupid thing? I can't tell any more 

1,2,3,4,5,6 is exactly as probable as any other combination.


----------



## strung out (Sep 11, 2009)

it would never happen though


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 11, 2009)

strung_out said:


> it would never happen though


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

internetstalker said:


>


I bet you a fiver that it doesn't happen by September 11th 2012.


----------



## teecee (Sep 11, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> it's a well known fact that 1,2,3,4,5,6 CAN come up but not in order and 4 would have to be the bonus ball



Actually you might have a point there -hadn't thought of that - coming up ina  random order is very possible - just highly improbable - although not as improbable as them coming up in sequential order

Although I'm not convinced it would have have to be 4 as the bonus ball, I think any ball is as likely as any other to be the bonus ball


----------



## Brinxmat (Sep 11, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Are we still doing the playing stupid thing? I can't tell any more
> 
> 1,2,3,4,5,6 is exactly as probable as any other combination.



Thank God somebody said that.

I mean, I like a laugh reading U75 threads and all that, happy to join in - you know?
But some of these arguments were hurting my fragile mathematical sensibilities.

But I do have one question....

I know that the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 being drawn are the same as any other six [ (6/49)+(5/48)+(4/47)+(3/46)+(2/45)+(1/44) ]but to get them out in that numberical order is that statistically the same as 3, 1, 5, 2, 4 and 6 [ (1/49)+(1/48)+(1/47)+(1/46)+(1/45)+(1/44) ]?


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 11, 2009)

I remember reading a few years ago that 30,000 people play the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 every week.


----------



## teecee (Sep 11, 2009)

It's do with probability vs possibility

It's the same reason you never buy the first ticket in a raffle - is possible you'll win but not very probable

I don't know of anyone who has ever won a raffle having ticket no 1


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 11, 2009)

teecee said:


> Actually you might have a point there -hadn't thought of that - coming up ina  random order is very possible - just highly improbable - although not as improbable as them coming up in sequential order
> 
> Although I'm not convinced it would have have to be 4 as the bonus ball, I think any ball is as likely as any other to be the bonus ball



no, it's definately 4


----------



## teecee (Sep 11, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> no, it's definately 4



Oh Ok


----------



## strung out (Sep 11, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> I remember reading a few years ago that 30,000 people play the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 every week.



exactly, that's why those numbers will never come up. way too obvious, which is why all the stupid people choose those numbers.


----------



## teecee (Sep 11, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> I remember reading a few years ago that 30,000 people play the numbers 1,2,3,4,5,6 every week.



Well there's 30 000 fools right there

edit: Damn, pipped at(to?) the post!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 11, 2009)

fogbat said:


> I think my referring to "mystical energies" makes it perfectly clear that I do, thank you very much.


you're welcome darling.


----------



## Juice Terry (Sep 11, 2009)

A snowflake always has six branches (one for each lottery ball) and a unique shape.

So when we had all that snow earlier this year Derren got his team to collect 19 million snowflakes one of which represented the winning lottery numbers on 09/09/09. Using chaos theory and fractal analysis techniques it would be relatively easy for someone with Derren's skills to work out the numbers from this.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

this thread is threatening to make me cry.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 11, 2009)

it's clearly a snowflake gathered from the year 2015 when Derren was on a time travelling expedition


----------



## teecee (Sep 11, 2009)

Juice Terry said:


> A snowflake always has six branches (one for each lottery ball) and a unique shape.
> 
> So when we had all that snow earlier this year Derren got his team to collect 19 million snowflakes one of which represented the winning lottery numbers on 09/09/09. Using chaos theory and fractal analysis techniques it would be relatively easy for someone with Derren's skills to work out the numbers from this.



Hmmm fractal recursion applied to probability theory ...interesting ..... Derren definitely thinks outside the box


----------



## Badger Kitten (Sep 11, 2009)

I'm a bit pushed to read all 25 pages, I've skimmed ten, but can someone tell me what he actually did/is trying to do?

Ta.


----------



## joustmaster (Sep 11, 2009)

its starting to feel like when a joke goes to far and it starts to feel nasty.


----------



## teecee (Sep 11, 2009)

Damn  I think I see a  flaw in that - fractals are infinitely recursive while lottery probabilities are finite ....unless he's using some kind of Venn analysis, overlapping probabilities with infinity ?


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> I'm a bit pushed to read all 25 pages, I've skimmed ten, but can someone tell me what he actually did/is trying to do?
> 
> Ta.



I missed the programme and asked that 3 pages back.   nothing. 

It would have been easier just to read it.


I'm not going to though, on matter of principle.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 11, 2009)

He claimed he was going to predict the lottery numbers.

He showed us six balls on a stand, apparently with numbers facing away from the camera.

Showed a couple of minutes of the live lottery broadcast, including the draw, and wrote the numbers down on a piece of paper.

He then turned around the stand with the balls, to show that they seemed to have the same numbers on them that had just been drawn.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> I'm a bit pushed to read all 25 pages, I've skimmed ten, but can someone tell me what he actually did/is trying to do?
> 
> Ta.





quimcunx said:


> I missed the programme and asked that 3 pages back.   nothing.
> 
> It would have been easier just to read it.
> 
> ...



At this point you're probably better off just waiting until tonight.  But people on this thread had two main theories:

1) Camera trick -- either a split-screen or some kind of green-screen or even a pre-recorded set of answers of which the right one was cut in at the crucial moment.

2) Trick balls (fnarr) -- either capable of electronic display or photosensitive with a UV imprint or simply having the answer projected onto them.

The fact that a YouTube video indicates that the leftmost ball moves during the set favours option 1.  Of the answers in Option 1, the pre-recorded seems incredibly unlikely, meaning that the splitscreen is the favoured option.  Plenty of people disagree with this analysis though.

There.  Helpful?


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

thank you, fogbat. 


lucky guess.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> At this point you're probably better off just waiting until tonight.  But people on this thread had two main theories:
> 
> 1) Camera trick -- either a split-screen or some kind of green-screen or even a pre-recorded set of answers of which the right one was cut in at the crucial moment.
> 
> ...



I shall refrain from going out until tonights programme has aired.   


Even though I know he'll lie by omission.


----------



## teecee (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> At this point you're probably better off just waiting until tonight.  But people on this thread had THREE main theories:



3.) Mathematricks


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

True.  Way, way, WAY back my stated theory was that it was just a lucky guess.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Sep 11, 2009)

fogbat said:


> He claimed he was going to predict the lottery numbers.
> 
> He showed us six balls on a stand, apparently with numbers facing away from the camera.
> 
> ...





kabbes said:


> At this point you're probably better off just waiting until tonight.  But people on this thread had two main theories:
> 
> 1) Camera trick -- either a split-screen or some kind of green-screen or even a pre-recorded set of answers of which the right one was cut in at the crucial moment.
> 
> ...



Thanks very much.


----------



## strung out (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> True.  Way, way, WAY back my stated theory was that it was just a lucky guess.



of course there's some luck involved but when you practice guesswork for a year, you start to get really good at it.


----------



## Brinxmat (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> At this point you're probably better off just waiting until tonight.  But people on this thread had two main theories:
> 
> 1) Camera trick -- either a split-screen or some kind of green-screen or even a pre-recorded set of answers of which the right one was cut in at the crucial moment.
> 
> ...





And there we have it. A very astute summary of Derren Brown's niche.


He does an "event" that - seemingly - defies logic.

He steps back.

Everyone and their dog says "How did he do that?"

Then, over a couple of days, everyone and their dog comes up with various theories that - again - defy logic. But - crucially - all with a sinister little angle that comes through with a sub-text of "we don't like being hoodwinked".

And all of us remember being "fooled" by our dads/mums/uncles/whatevers at some stage in our lives where the rest of the family laughed and we hated it, but we all join in when it happens to our younger brother/sister. 

And now Derren is doing it again so we all jump on the "it has to be explained thus" bandwagon...and the "it can't be anything else because we're now grown-ups and we know stuff" taxi for those that can't fit on the bandwagon.

Then he steps forward and shows us how he did it.

And we sit there and say "oh" or "blimey" or "woof"

Because no-one likes being in the dark.

Because everyone wants to know how its done.

Because everyone is *always* slightly disappointed that it's not real magic and everyone, during the next few days, will say "I knew that's how it worked" and "even my dog knew that's how he did it".

And Derren knows this.

And I, for one, bloody well admire him for repeating this very simple exercise time and time again.

And I'm happy to sit there, in front of my telly, nodding like a labrador and enjoying the whole show.


----------



## strung out (Sep 11, 2009)

he won't show us how it's done


----------



## T & P (Sep 11, 2009)

Has this been posted yet? Chap on youtube proves one way in which it can be done 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediamonkeyblog/2009/sep/11/derren-brown-youtube-theory


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 11, 2009)

T & P said:


> Has this been posted yet? Chap on youtube proves one way in which it can be done
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediamonkeyblog/2009/sep/11/derren-brown-youtube-theory



post #444


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

Brinxmat said:


> And there we have it. A very astute summary of Derren Brown's niche.
> 
> 
> He does an "event" that - seemingly - defies logic.
> ...




I'm quite happy just to enjoy it.  And I like how he debunks the cons too. 

He entertains.  This is enough.


----------



## D'wards (Sep 11, 2009)

strung_out said:


> he won't show us how it's done



I have a feeling this will be true - he will not admit its a camera trick, i fear


----------



## T & P (Sep 11, 2009)

I'm sorry for the magicians and their Magic Circle rules, but I do like to know how a good trick is performed. As a matter of fact I admire it the better for it if a trick is revealed to be a well accomplished, engineered and rehearsed feat.

Much prefer that to twats like that David Copperfield or David Blaine, who you can tell would like to have us believe they can actually perform magic in the literal sense of the word.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Sep 11, 2009)

plane takes off


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 11, 2009)

Talk to the Eye because the Hand ain't listening.


----------



## jms (Sep 11, 2009)

Derren Brown is an _illusionist_.

Therefore, he did not predict the lottery numbers.

And I can't shake that thought. So, I think to myself, well it must be just some split-screen thing or something like that, like the guy on youtube shows. But then I think, no, he wouldn't do something that obvious, there's got to be a bit more to it than that. But then maybe that's what I'm supposed to think - "This is _Derren Brown_, he wouldn't do something silly like that!" Or would he?

I think in this case that the illusion will not just be the prediction of the numbers, but the explanation too. That's where we really suspend our disbelief - we simply assume that he is going to honestly explain how it works, and that when he does so he will be telling the truth. Thats where the real magic, the real illusion is.


----------



## fogbat (Sep 11, 2009)

jms said:


> Derren Brown is an _illusionist_.
> 
> Therefore, he did not predict the lottery numbers.



Picky, I know, but the reason he did not predict the lottery numbers is because that's not possible. Not because he's an illusionist


----------



## jms (Sep 11, 2009)

fogbat said:


> Picky, I know, but the reason he did not predict the lottery numbers is because that's not possible. Not because he's an illusionist



It is possible to "predict" the lottery numbers - people do it every week. Its just highly unliklely.



(I don't really understand probability. Or the English Language. Or Urban75. )


----------



## fogbat (Sep 11, 2009)

jms said:


> It is possible to "predict" the lottery numbers - people do it every week. Its just highly unliklely.
> 
> 
> 
> (I don't really understand probability. Or the English Language. Or Urban75. )


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

jms said:


> (I don't really understand probability. Or the English Language. Or Urban75. )



clearly.




It's simple really.  I _can_ predict the numbers but I _may not_ predict them correctly.


----------



## jms (Sep 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is why I love these messageboards. The point you _actually made_ is more or less ignored, whilst the detail is picked at mercilessly/you are rolleyed to death.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

jms said:


> This is why I love these messageboards. The point you _actually made_ is more or less ignored, whilst the detail is picked at mercilessly/you are rolleyed to death.




It's not that it's ignored but in being correct it is worthy of no further comment of itself so we have to find something else to keep us from our work.

And I wasn't picking - I was joining in. 

so there.


----------



## Brinxmat (Sep 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> It's not that it's ignored but in being correct it is worthy of no further comment of itself so we have to find something else to keep us from our work.
> 
> And I wasn't picking - I was joining in.
> 
> so there.



For example, quimcunx failed to capitalise that last sentence:

So there.


----------



## 6_6 (Sep 11, 2009)

T & P said:


> Has this been posted yet? Chap on youtube proves one way in which it can be done
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/mediamonkeyblog/2009/sep/11/derren-brown-youtube-theory



I thought so.  The artificial camera shake is quite clever.


----------



## D'wards (Sep 11, 2009)

"Darren" has said on his Twitter 

"Morning. Speculation this morning fantastic. Lasers, split screens, tiny LED readouts in the balls. Iam loving today. Hope you are well"

I reckon he's gonna deny its split screens, you know (which i'm convinced it is)


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 11, 2009)

It's been revealed early how he did it


----------



## 6_6 (Sep 11, 2009)

internetstalker said:


> It's been revealed early how he did it



LOL!


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

Brinxmat said:


> For example, quimcunx failed to capitalise that last sentence:
> 
> So there.



That is not a mistake but a lifestyle choice.


----------



## STFC (Sep 11, 2009)

Misdirection, misdirection, misdirection...


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 11, 2009)

next week he's going incapacitate us


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:
			
		

> At this point you're probably better off just waiting until tonight. But people on this thread had two main theories:
> 
> 1) Camera trick -- either a split-screen or some kind of green-screen or even a pre-recorded set of answers of which the right one was cut in at the crucial moment.
> 
> ...



Using a slightly abstract reasoning, _whatever is honest about an illusion is presented to the full_ - so one might eliminate any method that would have still worked with an audience present, otherwise there would have been one.


----------



## rasputin (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> At this point you're probably better off just waiting until tonight.  But people on this thread had two main theories:
> 
> 1) Camera trick -- either a split-screen or some kind of green-screen or even a pre-recorded set of answers of which the right one was cut in at the crucial moment.
> 
> ...




Neither of the above.

Looking at the clip on YouTube today for the first time, it's noticeable that he very carefully eases himself into position when he walks behind the stand holding the balls.

I think this suggests a very clever use of false perspective, where the stand  appears to be yards away from the back of the studio, but in fact there is a gap of just a few inches.  This would enable an accomplice positioned behind the back wall to apply the numbers to the balls as they become known.


----------



## rikwakefield (Sep 11, 2009)

This thread is so funny.


----------



## STFC (Sep 11, 2009)

Hand over the mouth all the way through the draw, didn't notice that first time around.


----------



## Jorum (Sep 11, 2009)

The leftmost ball definately appears to move up of it's own accord for no reason.
The only explanation I can think of for that is a half-screen overlay switching from static image to live.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 11, 2009)

the experiment is flawed


----------



## manifold (Sep 11, 2009)

Pfft, THH is more likely in the game the way he's playing it. Clever misdirection though, as it's subtle.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

I'm not sure about deep maths but even I could see that THH would come up more often than HHH.


----------



## manifold (Sep 11, 2009)

No, it's simple maths, but not intuitively obvious. I saw a TED talk a while back with almost the same trick


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 11, 2009)

this is fail.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

manifold said:


> No, it's simple maths, but not intuitively obvious.



I barely scraped a maths o level. 

It seemed pretty intuitive to me for those two particular combinations and a continuous sequence. 

I have no idea about his reversing and moving to the start thing.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

This programme is making the baby kabbes cry.

"Deep mathematics"?  Is it fuck as like.  It's trivial logic.

And if you have 24 people pick numbers from 1 to 49, all the averages are going to centre around 24.5.  And look -- two of the numbers chosen were 27 and 28.

This is silly.  There is NO WAY that any of this applies to the lottery.  It's entertaining bollocks though.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I barely scraped a maths o level.
> 
> It seemed pretty intuitive to me for those two particular combinations.
> 
> I have no idea about his reversing and moving to the start thing.



Think about it.  If he says HHH and you say THH then he can *only* win if HHH is the very first three coins thrown.  Otherwise you will *always* get a THH before he gets an HHH.

You can replace the Ts and Hs with anything as long as the underlying pattern remains the same.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> This programme is making *the baby kabbes* cry.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 11, 2009)

I'm not a probabilitistician or a mathematisationalist but I call bullshit on this. Plus, frankly, I'm bored. Overhyped, a victim of it's own anticipation. I'm more convinced now that he green screened it tbh.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

Oh good grief.  Has nobody ever heard of the Central Limit Theorem?  The distribution of the chosen averages will tend to Normal(24.5, s), where s is given by the variance of the underlying uniform distribution (from memory, something like 48/12, I think) divided by the square root of the number of people.

In other words, the predictions will tend to cluster around 24.5, but with sufficient diversity to be able to make the odd prediction further away.

The lottery itself DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT THOUGH.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


>


Hope he's got a CRB for that.

Little bit of satire for you there. Lovely.


----------



## tarannau (Sep 11, 2009)

I never liked baby Kabbes anyway. Cry away.

This is a bit dull though. Bring back Debbie McGee


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

The kabbess has declared herself bored, shut her eyes and demanded that I rub her feet instead.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


>


It's like the baby Jesus only more awesome.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Think about it.  If he says HHH and you say THH then he can *only* win if HHH is the very first three coins thrown.  Otherwise you will *always* get a THH before he gets an HHH.
> 
> You can replace the Ts and Hs with anything as long as the underlying pattern remains the same.



Yes, but what if he hadn't chosen HHH?   What I was asking myself was how did he get the guy to choose HHH?  Apart from it being first.  If Derren had said anything but TTT I could see he would win against HHH.  


If his thing works with all combinations then that is different but I haven't applied my brain to that yet.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

Besides, these 24 people would have made the same prediction any other week!  It's ridiculous!


----------



## DRINK? (Sep 11, 2009)

I'm gonna chase this warlock down with a lead helmet on and eat his heart to gain his powers....I will RULE you all


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> It's like the baby Jesus only more awesome.



Is it an actual baby though?  Is there something you need to tell us?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 11, 2009)

So he's more or less admitting it was a TV screen trick with an extra Friday programme for teh stupid.


----------



## STFC (Sep 11, 2009)

The stupid bastards.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 11, 2009)

fucking hell - it's the cult of DOND all over again


----------



## tarannau (Sep 11, 2009)

I'm worried that I've started watching Deal or No Fucking deal by mistake.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Yes, but what if he hadn't chosen HHH?   What I was asking myself was how did he get the guy to choose HHH?  Apart from it being first.  If Derren had said anything but TTT I could see he would win against HHH.
> 
> 
> If his thing works with all combinations then that is different but I haven't applied my brain to that yet.



It's a classic maths trick -- you have to realise that it doesn't matter what you call the choices.  You can call them S and Q and declare that the first head corresponds to S whilst the second head corresponds to a Q.  They're just names.

If he had chosen THH then you choose TTH.  The same thing applies.  Unless THH coes up first then TTH will ALWAYS appear before THH.  Because to get to THH, you have to get TH first.  And a T will have come before that, otherwise the game would already have been over.  It's harder to see this with TTH/THH rather than THH/HHH but it works for the same reason.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 11, 2009)

LooooooL!

I reckon he's ballsy enough to swap the balls.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Is it an actual baby though?  Is there something you need to tell us?



No, it's me.


----------



## Juice Terry (Sep 11, 2009)

Derren has jumped the shark, that was utter utter utter horseshit.


----------



## STFC (Sep 11, 2009)

What a load of old shit.


----------



## Ozric (Sep 11, 2009)

What a bunch of cock, he did split screen but some jiggery pokery to make it look like a hand held camera.
I'm annoyed of all the tit-arsing around he has placed on this trick....and that the lampost numbers didn't come up


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> No, it's me.



Well congratulations! 

You're very erudite for a baby.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

Classic fallacy of excluded middle in his three choices.  There is a fourth option -- a simple illusion, such as a camera trick.

Not his finest moment.  And automatic writing "interpreted" by Derren means what, exactly?  It means that Derren interprets it to mean what he wants it to mean, is what.


----------



## manifold (Sep 11, 2009)

What a disappointing episode. Don't particularly fancy the rest of them now.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Well congratulations!
> 
> You're very erudite for a baby.


Sorry, it was only a play on "makes the baby Jesus cry".


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Oh good grief.  Has nobody ever heard of the Central Limit Theorem?  The distribution of the chosen averages will tend to Normal(24.5, s), where s is given by the variance of the underlying uniform distribution (from memory, something like 48/12, I think) divided by the square root of the number of people.
> 
> In other words, the predictions will tend to cluster around 24.5, but with sufficient diversity to be able to make the odd prediction further away.
> 
> The lottery itself DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT THOUGH.


pfft, what do you know. You can't make people stamp on mice. What good are you?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

How predictable was it that 13 would be the number left to the end, eh?  And 1 too, for that matter.  Even I predicted it.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> It's a classic maths trick -- you have to realise that it doesn't matter what you call the choices.  You can call them S and Q and declare that the first head corresponds to S whilst the second head corresponds to a Q.  They're just names.
> 
> If he had chosen THH then you choose TTH.  The same thing applies.  Unless THH coes up first then TTH will ALWAYS appear before THH.  Because to get to THH, you have to get TH first.  And a T will have come before that, otherwise the game would already have been over.  It's harder to see this with TTH/THH rather than THH/HHH but it works for the same reason.



I will take your word for it*.  

My point was that it was intuitive with those choices, whereas whoever it was said that it wasn't intuitive.  

* or possibly have a think about it later.  It's hurting my little brane now. 



I allegedly have an IQ of 149 I'll have you know.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 11, 2009)

Juice Terry said:


> Derren has jumped the shark, that was utter utter utter horseshit.


I agree...until at least 23 people win tomorrow's jackpot 

Which of course they won't


----------



## where to (Sep 11, 2009)

what a slaver.

its going to be interested to see how many dafties fall for that inane shite.


----------



## debaser (Sep 11, 2009)

"potentially a career breaker"


----------



## T & P (Sep 11, 2009)

Unsatisfactory explanation is unsatisfactory.

Reluctantly I have to agree with others that he simply green-screened the whole thing. Or something else. But I don't buy this 'power of the group' nonsense.

Funny that he's using the same old trick fortune tellers tell: namely that he and those taking part cannot make any gain or profits from their prediction skills, or the whole thing won't work.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> How predictable was it that 13 would be the number left to the end, eh?  And 1 too, for that matter.  Even I predicted it.



We don't think of ourselves as superstitious and some of us might even think to deliberately stamp on 13 but somehow think ''won't risk it'' - get us scared and we're more superstitious than we think.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 11, 2009)

That picture of the mouse on the card was a bit bollocks, too. He could have revealed something murine about any of the other cages. 

Don't really rate him. On stage, he's just like any other mentalist act, with the slight twist that he relies on halfwits believing in NLP rather than in magic. The man is absurdly reliant on camera tricks.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 11, 2009)

T & P said:


> Unsatisfactory explanation is unsatisfactory.
> 
> Reluctantly I have to agree with others that he simply green-screened the whole thing. Or something else. But I don't buy this 'power of the group' nonsense.
> 
> Funny that he's using the same old trick fortune tellers tell: namely that he and those taking part cannot make any gain or profits from their prediction skills, or the whole thing won't work.


and the automatic writing angle is a convenient way of avoiding liability by blaming mispredictions on the subconscious.


----------



## Ozric (Sep 11, 2009)

The biggest clue as to his fraudulent escapade is.........................IT'S A ROLL OVER


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 11, 2009)

Ha!

Brilliant!

It had me going all along - how did he do did it?

Who knows?  A very piece of entertaining TV though?

Isn't that what TV is supposed to be about?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 11, 2009)

I got a bit bored with the group of people and the automatic writing etc..and felt sure there had to be a 'twist' at the end. Which there sort of was. It was that I sat and watched it


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

Awesome.  David Blaine just did the lottery trick and did it better.


----------



## yardbird (Sep 11, 2009)

I really couldn't be bollocks with all this nonsense.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Awesome.  David Blaine just did the lottery trick and did it better.



We are watching this and Mr. QofG's has turned into a small boy shouting "Noooooo!" and "Woooooww"!!


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 11, 2009)

there's is a very interesting programme about stanley kubrick right now on sky arts.
that is all.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

David Blaine's street magic was the first time as an adult I got excited about magic.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 11, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> there's is a very interesting programme about stanley kubrick right now on sky arts.
> that is all.




Don't have sky


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 11, 2009)

tis on freeview!


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 11, 2009)

oh, maybe it isn't actually - we have virgin


----------



## smmudge (Sep 11, 2009)

So it was split screen then? Ah ok, thought so.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

Quimmy, consider the sequences:

You choose THH
I choose TTH.

Now the sequence goes:

TTT....TH -- I win.
H...HTTTT...TH -- I win

H...HTHH -- You win

You can only win if one T comes up before it reverts to at least two Hs.  I win if any other number of Ts comes up before it reverts to an H.  So I have a bigger chance of winning (although you do have a chance of winning, which isn't what i said before).

Odds of winning --

If it starts T...

If it goes TT then I win automatically.
If it goes TH then it's 50/50 for you to win on the next throw.  If it is a T then we are back to the initial position.

If it starts H...

Then it is irrelevant because neither of us can win.  Nothing happens until an H is thrown.

So you need to get the H after the T then get another H.  That's 1/4.  I just need to get a T afte the T, which is 1/2.  (The other 1/4 starts the process over).  So my odds of winning are twice yours.  In other words I have a 2/3 chance and you have a 1/3 chance.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

tl;dr

You are a sweetie, kabbes.  A stubborn, single-minded sweetie. 


I might have a look at it later.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

Blaine is one hell of a conjuror.


----------



## smmudge (Sep 11, 2009)

Oh. I thought each person would toss it three times and if their sequence came up they got a point, before handing it over to the next person to throw it 3 times. That's just cheating really.


----------



## STFC (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> How predictable was it that 13 would be the number left to the end, eh?  And 1 too, for that matter.  Even I predicted it.



My girlfriend said "He'll leave number 13".

"Pfffttt" I said. "It won't be that obvious."


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 11, 2009)

David Blaine is going to do the catching bullet trick....I hope he dresses like Hans Morreti otherwise it just won't be right


----------



## where to (Sep 11, 2009)

anyone else notice that of the group of 24, one girl was far, far more into it (gullible) than the rest.  she wore a nice bright purple dress and they stuck her at the front occupying about 30% of the screen.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> tl;dr
> 
> You are a sweetie, kabbes.  A stubborn, single-minded sweetie.
> 
> ...



You're right, it was way too tl.

Here's the simple version.

1a) If we throw an H, nothing happens because neither of us starts with H.  Ignore it.

1b) If we throw a T then it's game on.

2a) If it then goes TT, I win.  You're screwed because no matter how many Ts with throw, as soon as we throw an H, I win.  So my odds (given the initial T) are 1/2.

2b) If it goes TH then it's still game on.  

On to the next throw...

3a) If it now goes THH then you win.  So your odds (given the initial T) are 1/4.

3b) If it goes THT then we can ignore the TH part and consider ourselves back to position 1b).

So my odds of winning are simply twice yours.  In the long run, this must mean that I have a 2:1 chance of winning, meaning I am 2/3 and you are 1/3.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

smmudge said:


> Oh. I thought each person would toss it three times and if their sequence came up they got a point, before handing it over to the next person to throw it 3 times. That's just cheating really.



You could see from the blackboard that this wasn't the case though.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

Fucking _hell_, Blaine has some serious skill with cards.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Quimmy, consider the sequences:
> 
> You choose THH
> I choose TTH.
> ...



I will try ro remember this AND the explaination for next months trip to the 'Dam where I can fleece my ripped mates when we do this money, bamboozling them in the process

I found the monty hall one quite fascinating


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

See?  Stubborn. 

It's not that I won't be able to understand it.  But I do need to think about maths and patterns and odd and things, and probably work an example myself to get it straight in my head.  And  _As I already mentioned_ I haven't given it any thought yet, at all.  It's friday. I spent the last hour or so at work working out multi-currency expense claims and I have a headache.  I'll think later.


----------



## Biglittlefish (Sep 11, 2009)

Both his explanations are bull. If it was that easy it would have been done. I'm going to see if I have sky arts.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

I will MAKE you understand through SHEER FORCE OF WORDS.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Fucking _hell_, Blaine has some serious skill with cards.




He is seriously good isn't he


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I will MAKE you understand through SHEER FORCE OF WORDS.



You'll make the baby quimcunx CRY!!!


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

Now somebody has to explain to me how Blaine does any one of his card tricks.  Seriously, any of them.  It's freaky.  Particularly that one where the deck just... shrunk.  As we watched, it just got thinner.  THAT SHIT AIN'T RIGHT.


----------



## smmudge (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> You could see from the blackboard that this wasn't the case though.



Aww and they had balloons and pom poms and everything.

It was definitely a whiteboard though.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

I was watching the negative.


----------



## Santino (Sep 11, 2009)

I didn't watch the David Blaine programme. Did it show him perform a single trick from beginning to end, or was it several different performances intercut, as he sometimes does?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

It's still on.  It's about a thousand tricks, one after the other, all performed on the streets to gobsmacked individuals.

Git or not, he is the very best at card tricks.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

Santino said:


> I didn't watch the David Blaine programme. Did it show him perform a single trick from beginning to end, or was it several different performances intercut, as he sometimes does?



Intercut I think.  It's still on. 


Hope you had a nice holiday. 


Make kabbes stop talking at me.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

Although now he's about to do the catch-a-bullet trick.


----------



## Santino (Sep 11, 2009)

I like it when he walks from city to city along motorways. He doesn't even need motorised transport.


----------



## Santino (Sep 11, 2009)

I'm watching the Beatles documentary. 

They were great.


----------



## Santino (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Although now he's about to do the catch-a-bullet trick.


Penn and Teller do that awesome version of it with two bullets simultaneously.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

He's not the best at these set-pieces, frankly.  He should stick to the card magic.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 11, 2009)

Santino said:


> I'm watching the Beatles documentary.
> 
> They were great.



Keep your beatlonormative assumptions to yourself


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> He's not the best at these set-pieces, frankly.  He should stick to the card magic.



I agree - he should stick to the card and sleight of hand stuff


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 11, 2009)

QueenOfGoths said:


> I agree - he should stick to the card and sleight of hand stuff



Also agree.  When he left the beatles he should have retired from music altogether.


----------



## Santino (Sep 11, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Keep your beatlonormative assumptions to yourself



Ringo was a perfectly competent drummer.


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 11, 2009)

i thought derren was full of shit

I still think it was the split screen


----------



## strung out (Sep 11, 2009)

so it was magic then


----------



## Weller (Sep 11, 2009)

Why I stopped in to watch it I dont know - what a load of utter shite and a massive let down.

I am convinced that it was green screen overlay trickery now surely he's lost a lot of his followers with this 
Overhyped and I think he has lost the plot , especially as his twitch seems to be getting worse by the day 

Ive just watched his interview with Richard Dawkins on youtube that I came accross whilst searching , he really comes across in that one as unable to answer a lot of questions , he mumbles and doesnt really offer much that has not been heard before .

Id not really watched him before this lottery stunt maybe Im missing something but he seems a bit average to me , nothing spectacular.


----------



## smmudge (Sep 11, 2009)

I thought it was strange that there wasn't really a mouse or a knife. I think he's losing confidence in his powers.


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 12, 2009)

What was Derren's 'explanation'?


----------



## manifold (Sep 12, 2009)

The power of wishful thinking.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2009)

he actually predicted the numbers due to some nonsense about the wisdom of crowds


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 12, 2009)

Oh and David Blaine didn't even 'catch' the bullet... where did it go?


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 12, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> he actually predicted the numbers due to some nonsense about the wisdom of crowds


you are fucking kidding. Derren? What's gone wrong?


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 12, 2009)

For his next trick, Derren Brown's going to lock 20 people in a room, get them to write down a sequence of notes, average each of the notes for all 20 people and play I Am A Walrus out of his arse, backwards.

I'm sorry, but he's a cunt.


----------



## strung out (Sep 12, 2009)

he got 20 or so people who were really good at guessing all in the same room. usually these 20ish people would only be able to guess a couple of numbers themselves but by getting them all in the same room, they managed to guess all 6 numbers. pretty obvious when you think about it


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 12, 2009)

strung_out said:


> he got 20 or so people who were really good at guessing all in the same room. usually these 20ish people would only be able to guess a couple of numbers themselves but by getting them all in the same room, they managed to guess all 6 numbers. pretty obvious when you think about it



Exactly.  If only the other people on this thread were able to think logically.


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> I'm sorry, but he's a cunt.


Because he made a programme you didn't enjoy?


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 12, 2009)

It's just dreadfully silly. He asks you to accept too many conceits and drives you around too many houses for  what is a simple smoke and mirrors illusion. It's a hell of a palarver for something that belongs on Blackpool pier - in my opinion.


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> It's just dreadfully silly. He asks you to accept too many conceits and drives you around too many houses for  what is a simple smoke and mirrors illusion. It's a hell of a palarver for something that belongs on Blackpool pier - in my opinion.


You know where you can stick your opinion.

Because I have just implanted the location into your mind subliminally.


----------



## fee (Sep 12, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> It's just dreadfully silly. He asks you to accept too many conceits and drives you around too many houses for  what is a simple smoke and mirrors illusion. It's a hell of a palarver for something that belongs on Blackpool pier - in my opinion.



yer but he does it well....have you been to the pier recently??? not so good as mr brown!


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

So does no one give any credence to the 'manipulating the machine' explanation?


----------



## Diamond (Sep 12, 2009)

Just got back, can some kind person give me the solution in ten words or less?


----------



## bigbry (Sep 12, 2009)

It was alleged in one of todays newpapers that it was  a 'smoke and mirrors' job - they used a split screen, the left side showing a 'still' of the balls he had supposedly written the numbers on, the right side showed Darren Brown watching the lottery draw.  He said he couldn't give out the numbers beforde because of 'lottery rules' - they only apply to the BBC not disclosing them before transmission.

While we are watching Darren watching the draw a studio hand is writing the numbers on the ball as they're drawn but we are only shown the  'still' of the balls on their stand.

Seems a plausible answer - never mind all his 'bullshit' about asking 'good guessers' to give him their ideas.


----------



## stereotypical (Sep 12, 2009)

He inadvertently admitted he used camera trickery


----------



## N_igma (Sep 12, 2009)

I'm pissed, someone gimme a laymans terms in how he did it? Please, I'm a lazy cunt.


----------



## Orangesanlemons (Sep 12, 2009)

N_igma said:


> I'm pissed, someone gimme a laymans terms in how he did it? Please, I'm a lazy cunt.



This explanation seems as good as any.


----------



## N_igma (Sep 12, 2009)

Orangesanlemons said:


> This explanation seems as good as any.



So he didn't reveal his tomfoolery? I'm gonna sue.


----------



## where to (Sep 12, 2009)

after slating him earlier i've had a think.  (apologies if others have already posted about this)

it was so shit that theres obviously more to it than that.

we who are slating him are in on his trick.

the trick is to use the power of suggestion to make lots of people think they can predict the lottery numbers.

toworrow an extra x million will play the lottery.

he will say that they played the lottery because he used the power of suggestion on a mass scale and they were duped into thinking the clearly impossible.

he will then show all the clues he has dropped in the last week that this has been a joke on the behalf of the gullible (and if you go through other forums theres a shit load of people who really believe tonight's episode was genuine).

he will point to the adverts for the lottery tonight during the show etc, to the fact that he has said all along that this series is about the power of suggestion. to the fact that he was laughing into the camera saying "if you still don't believe it ...".

if say, an extra 3 million lottery tickets are bought this will look fairly impressive and stack up reasonably.

if one of them actually wins....


----------



## where to (Sep 12, 2009)

next Friday's show is called "how to control the nation"....


----------



## Weller (Sep 12, 2009)

I posted this reveal a bit back but after seeing Darrens "solution" I now believe it more than ever...


----------



## where to (Sep 12, 2009)

where to said:


> if say, an extra 3 million lottery tickets are bought this will look fairly impressive and stack up reasonably.



the other possibility is that over the last week he's been planting subliminal messages for the numbers he wants the believers to pick.

them using this bilngwriting technique that he plugged makes them more likely to delve deep into their subconscious when picking the numbers.


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

stereotypical said:


> He inadvertently admitted he used camera trickery


 When was that?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

I misremembered by parameters slightly last nigh.

If 24 people pick a number completely randomly from 1 to 49 the the average of those picks is going to be given, via that Cental Limit Theorem, by

Normal(25, sqrt{[(48^2+1)/12]/24})

= Normal(25, 2.82)

In other words, about 95% of the averaged guesses will cluster betweem 19 and 31.

This is simple fact.

If Derren is influencing people, however, this will change radically according to his whims.  And if he is "interpreting" their magic writing then he chan choose to do this however he wants!


----------



## Voley (Sep 12, 2009)

I'm deeply confused. Can we all fuck Camelot over tonight or what?


----------



## the button (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> I misremembered by parameters slightly last nigh.
> 
> If 24 people pick a number completely randomly from 1 to 49 the the average of those picks is going to be given, via that Cental Limit Theorem, by
> 
> ...



Good old kabbes. 

This is undoubtedly true, but don't you have to take into account that people will tend not to pick numbers completely at random? I reckon the distribution would be skewed by -- among other things -- people picking birthdays, which can only be between 1 and 31. (This is why I always go for a lucky dip when I play the lottery -- no more likely to win, but more likely not to have to share the winnings ).


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Sep 12, 2009)

Just watching this for the first time. Apart from the possibility of a camera trick, what about the possiblity of some sort of mirror or sheet of glass in front of the prediction balls?

Using this clip 

between 5:12 and 5:18, just as the camera swings suddenly to the left, something appears to be disappearing to the left of the screen, as though a sheet object is being pulled rapidly away from the front of the balls.

Can anyone else see this, or am I imagining things.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 12, 2009)

N_igma said:


> I'm pissed, someone gimme a laymans terms in how he did it? Please, I'm a lazy cunt.


get a random number generator off tinternets.
program up 25 lottery results.
add each of the 25 balls together then divide by 25.
that's your guaranteed win.

Not sure what you are meant to do with fractions of course but it's what i've done to generate tonight's numbers.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 12, 2009)

where to said:


> the other possibility is that over the last week he's been planting subliminal messages for the numbers he wants the believers to pick.
> 
> them using this bilngwriting technique that he plugged makes them more likely to delve deep into their subconscious when picking the numbers.



far more likely that he would do this to a group of 24 and fix the lottery thus giving himself a plausible alibi


----------



## Maggot (Sep 12, 2009)

Santino said:


> So does no one give any credence to the 'manipulating the machine' explanation?


 You mean the one he denied using at the end?  I think it's the most likely explanation.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 12, 2009)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Just watching this for the first time. Apart from the possibility of a camera trick, what about the possiblity of some sort of mirror or sheet of glass in front of the prediction balls?
> 
> Using this clip
> 
> ...



I can't tell.

This all sounds more like Most Haunted than anything else.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Sep 12, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> I can't tell.



I might be imagining it. After the dozen'th viewing your eyes kinda glaze over. 

In any event something like that would be a low tech version of the green screen, albeit more credible because it used sleight of hand not electronics....


----------



## Badger Kitten (Sep 12, 2009)

Well, it's worked, you're all talking like mad about it.

edit. For 32 pages. First thing on a Saturday morning


----------



## Corax (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> This is silly.  There is NO WAY that any of this applies to the lottery.  It's entertaining bollocks though.



You just don't understand maths properly.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

the button said:


> Good old kabbes.
> 
> This is undoubtedly true, but don't you have to take into account that people will tend not to pick numbers completely at random? I reckon the distribution would be skewed by -- among other things -- people picking birthdays, which can only be between 1 and 31. (This is why I always go for a lucky dip when I play the lottery -- no more likely to win, but more likely not to have to share the winnings ).



Oh, definitely.  But with these particular volunteers, he was asking them to "determine the true pattern" or some such gubbins, which theoretically should remove this "lucky number" effect.  Or, at least, it will somewhat remove it, because people are trying to guess the actual numbers rather than picking their favourite numbers.

You'll note that in his filmed examples (before he started his influencing techniques), they did indeed happen to hit numbers that came up in the 19-31 range. From memory, they were various numbers in the 20s plus 19.  Later on, he got a 35 too, which indicates something else is going on by that point, because it's very unlikely by chance.


----------



## foo (Sep 12, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Well, it's worked, you're all talking like mad about it.
> 
> edit. For 32 pages. First thing on a Saturday morning



just what i thought BK 

after watching his 'explanation' last night, we STILL don't know though do we...?

(checks it's not just me)


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

You don't understand.  I think about this stuff _all the time_.  It's why I've gone completely insane.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 12, 2009)

Badger Kitten said:


> Well, it's worked, you're all talking like mad about it.
> 
> edit. For 32 pages. First thing on a Saturday morning



cept i woke up threw up last nights rum and am waiting for my stomach to calm down... and the thread was already this long were' tail ending it.

but his explanation which he did not do was the real explanation anyways...

his deep maths is plausible and potentially even possible but not how he did it...


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

Which "deep maths"?  There was no "deep maths".  There was a simple trick used to win the coin flipping game that had nothing to do with anything else.  And there was some utter rubbish talked about average numbers, which was mathematically complete arse.

There is some interesting discussion to be had about crowd wisdom though.  It's what the whole concept of market pricing is based on -- the collective market knows best.  It has some merit in that context, but it is highly, highly, HIGHLY susceptable to the various crowd behaviours that lead to bubbles and bear markets.  It has no merit at all in the context of a random number sequence.


----------



## STFC (Sep 12, 2009)

1. Why was the camera shaking so badly?
2. His hand was clasped tightly over his mouth as all the numbers were drawn. I think he was talking into a mic hidden in his sleeve.

Red herrings, or vital to the success of the trick?


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Sep 12, 2009)

foo said:


> just what i thought BK
> 
> after watching his 'explanation' last night, we STILL don't know though do we...?
> 
> (checks it's not just me)



We don't know,and we proberbly never will.


 But green screen, mirror, or something else, remember he hasn't actually *predicted* a single ball...........he's a fraud, but then all magicians are......


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

STFC said:


> 1. Why was the camera shaking so badly?
> 2. His hand was clasped tightly over his mouth as all the numbers were drawn. I think he was talking into a mic hidden in his sleeve.
> 
> Red herrings, or vital to the success of the trick?



What on earth could he be saying, though, that could possibly have any influence?  "PUT THE NUMBERS ON THE BALLS!  DO IT!  DO IT!"?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 12, 2009)

Corax said:


> You just don't understand maths properly.


 
Kabbes may be fine at maths, applied maths and further maths, but deep maths passes him by.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

Damn you, deep maths!

:shakes fist:


----------



## mrsfran (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Which "deep maths"?  There was no "deep maths".  There was a simple trick used to win the coin flipping game that had nothing to do with anything else.  And there was some utter rubbish talked about average numbers, which was mathematically complete arse.



Oh really? I was hoping to come here this morning and have you explain the "deep maths" in the coin trick. It doesn't exist? I feel tricked


----------



## Badger Kitten (Sep 12, 2009)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Kabbes may be fine at maths, applied maths and further maths, but deep maths passes him by.



I can't even do paddling pool maths


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

missfran said:


> Oh really? I was hoping to come here this morning and have you explain the "deep maths" in the coin trick. It doesn't exist? I feel tricked



See the last few pages for an explanation on that.  It is a trick that works, alright.  The best that the person going first can manage is a 1/3 chance of winning.  But it isn't "deep maths".  It just comes down to the fact that you of two sequences, one is always more likely to come up first.  So you pick your sequence second.

Here it is, where I consider the case where you have chosen THH so i pick TTH:



> 1a) If we throw an H, nothing happens because neither of us starts with H. Ignore it.
> 
> 1b) If we throw a T then it's game on.
> 
> ...


----------



## foo (Sep 12, 2009)

i'm utterly crap at maths but i remember when i did a philosophy degree and one particular lecturer was obsessed with all the Big Questions about us, the world, the universe  etc. can be explained by Deep Maths. 

he'd talk and talk at me, and even though i only understood about a squilipede of what he was saying, i loved it. the thought of deep maths excites me. i'm a twat aren't i.


----------



## strung out (Sep 12, 2009)

he was trying to get into your pants


----------



## Badger Kitten (Sep 12, 2009)

I don't think you are a twat.

 I am afraid of deep maths. Deep sum sharks live there.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

... And the guy in the programme made the worst possible choice by picking HHH.  As soon as Derren chose THH, it meant that the ONLY way that the sap could win was by getting HHH right at the start with the first three throws -- a 1/8 chance.  If there was a T within those first three throws, Derren would inevitably win, because two Hs will always happen before three Hs!


----------



## foo (Sep 12, 2009)

*strung out*



well yes, probably.

it was still very exciting though!


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

strung_out said:


> he was trying to get into your pants


Yes, I have consistently found talking about maths to be a real into-pants winner.


----------



## strung out (Sep 12, 2009)

it only works on people who get excited about deep maths


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

Deep maths


----------



## Badger Kitten (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Yes, I have consistently found talking about maths to be a real into-pants winner.



Well it probably works if you are Derren Brown.

That and hypnotising people.

'Hi, do you like deep maths? Look into my eyes, look into my eyes, not around the eyes but into the eyes, your knickers are falling off, you're falling onto the bed....back in the room.''


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)




----------



## strung out (Sep 12, 2009)

Derren Brown's gay and those kind of mind tricks only work on girls so i doubt he gets much action because of it


----------



## foo (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Deep maths



<wriggles>


----------



## Badger Kitten (Sep 12, 2009)

strung_out said:


> Derren Brown's gay and those kind of mind tricks only work on girls so i doubt he gets much action because of it



I don't know. I think they would work on my friend Ian. I have seen people try similar things before on him and it has worked, often very quickly.


----------



## the button (Sep 12, 2009)

strung_out said:


> Derren Brown's gay and those kind of mind tricks only work on girls so i doubt he gets much action because of it



He makes you *think* he's gay, so you trust him alone with your girlfriend.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

I have always found that the problem with attempting to impress the kabbess with my command of deep maths is that she has inevitably already figured out the answer and is impatiently waiting for me to catch up.  I triumphantly told her about the coins last night and basically got an eyeroll and a "durr, obviously."


----------



## strung out (Sep 12, 2009)

never date a girl cleverer than yourself. luckily i never have this problem.


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

strung_out said:


> never date a girl cleverer than yourself. luckily i never have this problem.



I know how I'm interpreting this statement.


----------



## strung out (Sep 12, 2009)




----------



## internetstalker (Sep 12, 2009)

I think his final words sum it all up

it was something like
'If ever anyone asks me how I did it, I'll tell them it was just a trick'

I think the whole episode was a misdirection excercise praying on the fact some people will believe anything


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

There's a magician on BBC1 right now to talk about it.  He seems to be endorsing the ridiculous method claimed.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

Ha, he has totally just obeyed the magician's code and gone along with Derren, obfusicating the issue when the questions were too direct.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 12, 2009)

tbf, this Brown isn't anywhwere near as good as the one who helped make people believe in WMD and who has made £170 billion disappear from the national bank balance.


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> There's a magician on BBC1 right now to talk about it.  He seems to be endorsing the ridiculous method claimed.


What was his name?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

Paul Neverheardofhim.


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> tbf, this Brown isn't anywhwere near as good as the one who helped make people believe in WMD and who has made £170 billion disappear from the national bank balance.


Little bit of politics there, ladies and gentlemen.


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Paul Neverheardofhim.


He's good, actually.

Better than Dave Wasn'theinthatthingonce.


----------



## AnnO'Neemus (Sep 12, 2009)

London_Calling said:


> tbf, this Brown isn't anywhwere near as good as the one who helped make people believe in WMD and who has made Â£170 billion disappear from the national bank balance.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 12, 2009)

Not quite The Onion though, is it 

I kind of like the idea of G. Brown adopting the language of the illusionist to explain what the fuck he did. Might make a skit.


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> ... And the guy in the programme made the worst possible choice by picking HHH.  As soon as Derren chose THH, it meant that the ONLY way that the sap could win was by getting HHH right at the start with the first three throws -- a 1/8 chance.  If there was a T within those first three throws, Derren would inevitably win, because two Hs will always happen before three Hs!


What happens if the stooge picks HTH and then you have to pick HHH?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Sep 12, 2009)

I like the idea of Derren using post neo-classical endogenous growth theory to explain why these weren't the droids I was looking for, rather than "deep maths".


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

Santino said:


> What happens if the stooge picks HTH and then you have to pick HHH?



You wouldn't -- you would pick HHT.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 12, 2009)

I like the idea of asking his mum why the fuck she can't spell Darren.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 12, 2009)

I generated the following numbers using the wisdom of crowds (by crowds I mean random.org) method which I will play this evening. You are free to play along at home. Don't forget to order my special book 'Playing Stupid Lottery Games' from Gullible press Inc. Or, if you can't read, you can buy the special 92-disc CD set that accompanies the book, in which I'm interviewed by that guy Jeff Goldblum played in Jurassic Park 2. The only reason it's 92 discs is that we couldn't edit out all the umming and erring he does. Anyway, enjoy. 

9.16, 15.32, 21.96, 28.96, 35.6, 42.76


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> You wouldn't -- you would pick HHT.


Oh. I must have misheard the technique. Oh no, I remember now, you ignore the last number, not the middle number. Gotcha.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

Awesome Wells said:


> I generated the following numbers using the wisdom of crowds (by crowds I mean random.org) method which I will play this evening. You are free to play along at home. Don't forget to order my special book 'Playing Stupid Lottery Games' from Gullible press Inc. Or, if you can't read, you can buy the special 92-disc CD set that accompanies the book, in which I'm interviewed by that guy Jeff Goldblum played in Jurassic Park 2. The only reason it's 92 discs is that we couldn't edit out all the umming and erring he does. Anyway, enjoy.
> 
> 9.16, 15.32, 21.96, 28.96, 35.6, 42.76



No way did 24 random numbers between 1 and 49 ever average out at 42.76.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> No way did 24 random numbers between 1 and 49 ever average out at 42.76.



Kabbes - are you still here! Have you not been to bed? Or have you spent all night calculating the lottery numbers


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

I never sleep, except when I sleep and then I dream in maths.


----------



## rikwakefield (Sep 12, 2009)

It was quite obviously a trick and that's exactly what Derren alluded to at the end.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> No way did 24 random numbers between 1 and 49 ever average out at 42.76.


25, not 24. I couldn't choose 24.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

You would have to be getting about half your numbers in the 43-49 range.  This is extraordinarily unlikely.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 12, 2009)

rikwakefield said:


> It was quite obviously a trick


I think we've got that far.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

One thing I haven't allowed for, actually, is if his 24 mugs chose their 6 numbers in size order rather than their predicted order for being pulled out of the bag.  If so, this obviously changes the distribution of the six and allows for more extreme results.  Hmm.  Did anybody notice if they chose their numbers in size order or not?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 12, 2009)

I am going off to do our lottery syndicate in a minute - 13 of us thinking about numbers for about 3 years now. We never fucking win anything


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

You need to write the past numbers up on a big whiteboard and use automatic writing.  That's where you're going wrong.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> You need to write the past numbers up on a big whiteboard and use automatic writing.  That's where you're going wrong.



Mmmmm - it's difficult enough getting their 'lucky pounds' out of them


----------



## T & P (Sep 12, 2009)

Incidentally he's a shit comedian and should really quit his attempts at humour while doing shows. What was it he said last night? Something like "remember, we don't care about the bonus number. The bonus number is for women and gays".

WTF?


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> One thing I haven't allowed for, actually, is if his 24 mugs chose their 6 numbers in size order rather than their predicted order for being pulled out of the bag.  If so, this obviously changes the distribution of the six and allows for more extreme results.  Hmm.  Did anybody notice if they chose their numbers in size order or not?


They certainly seemed to me to be guessing 'which will the first ball be', 'which will the second ball be' and so on.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

Santino said:


> They certainly seemed to me to be guessing 'which will the first ball be', 'which will the second ball be' and so on.



Yeah, that's what I thought too.  Which means that they really would cluster around 25.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

T & P said:


> Incidentally he's a shit comedian and should really quit his attempts at humour while doing shows. What was it he said last night? Something like "remember, we don't care about the bonus number. The bonus number is for women and gays".
> 
> WTF?


I think that he's a pretty good comedian, but that line certainly got the same reaction from me and went down very badly with the crowd too.


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

I lolled at the women and gays joke, but only because he is Gay and therefore Permitted.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

He's not a woman though.  The bonus ball should have been strictly for homosexuals only.


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

Is it true that homosexualists have a third testicle?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

I thought that it was a third nipple?


----------



## strung out (Sep 12, 2009)

Santino said:


> Is it true that homosexualists have a third testicle?



only semi formed


----------



## kabbes (Sep 12, 2009)

Actually, they do have a third testicle, but it is only for women.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Sep 12, 2009)

Santino;9685699]Is it true that homosexualists have a third testicle?[/QUOTE][QUOTE=kabbes said:


> I thought that it was a third nipple?



No, that's witches.

((witches))


----------



## maomao (Sep 12, 2009)

Surely it was just an unbelievably crap explanation in order to ensure the most gullible audience possible for his 'I will make you stick to the sofa' routine next week. I didn't expect to find a lot of people who believed it here but are many people at all going to believe it? If it does make lottery sales go up isn't it sort of preying on the vulnerable?


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Yes, I have consistently found talking about maths to be a real into-pants winner.



This is the real reason why I had to resist reading your explanations last night.  You're a married man!  I don't need that sort of heartache.


----------



## Badger Kitten (Sep 12, 2009)

maomao said:
			
		

> If it does make lottery sales go up isn't it sort of preying on the vulnerable?



Or preying on the lottery.
Perhaps it is a giant wealth-redistribution thing


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 12, 2009)

Did anyone notice the ad for the National Lottery during one of the ad breaks?

Camelot couldn't have been that arsed about this then.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2009)

why would they have been? tis free advertising


----------



## strung out (Sep 12, 2009)

wasn't that an advert for euromillions?


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 12, 2009)

strung_out said:


> wasn't that an advert for euromillions?



Yes, which is strange as the Euromillions draw is on a Friday, so you wouldn't have been able to buy a ticket for the rollover draw as advertised.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 12, 2009)

Just watched the 'explanation' programme, and it was disappointing that he lied about how he did it. You'd have to be a complete muppet to believe his explanation. It was split screened.



kabbes said:


> I will MAKE you understand through SHEER FORCE OF WORDS.


Worked for me, I kind of got it from the show but couldn't quite get my head around the _why_, but thanks to your examples I now understand.


internetstalker said:


> I still think it was the split screen


It was DEFINITELY split screened.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 12, 2009)

T & P said:


> Incidentally he's a shit comedian and should really quit his attempts at humour while doing shows. What was it he said last night? Something like "remember, we don't care about the bonus number. The bonus number is for women and gays".
> 
> WTF?



It's funnier when he swears to God and on his children's lives.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2009)

lots of complaints about brown's sexist and homophobic comment.
it's certainly an odd comment to come from a gay man.


----------



## ymu (Sep 12, 2009)

His last words were "it was just a trick". The year of his life was spent filming loads of groups guessing numbers until he had a convincing back story for the "wisdom of crowds" schtick. Disappointing, unless he's building up to a meta-point at the end.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 12, 2009)

kabbes said:


> You would have to be getting about half your numbers in the 43-49 range.  This is extraordinarily unlikely.


Most of the 6th numbers were.

This is one result; I'm sure if you were to do this every week for a year you'd probably find results conform more to your expectations.

On the other hand i could have added them up wrong.



Either way i have 6 numbers.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 12, 2009)

I quite like how his 'reveals' are always just more bullshit, though for some reason I didn't expect this of the lottery thing. (I missed the show BTW). 

I am always quite surprised that most tricks have the easy solution that is that the illusionist has simply lied to the audience. Those ones where they make an elephant or whatever disappear while surrounded by the audience in a parking lot for instance. The audience are in on it (despite what the illusionist says) and everything else is about the camera angles. 
As soon as you assume that a lot of what is being said is lies the tricks can look fairly simple. And why not lie? When the man says "I am going to saw this woman in half", that's a lie too of course.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 12, 2009)

ymu said:


> His last words were "it was just a trick". The year of his life was spent filming loads of groups guessing numbers until he had a convincing back story for the "wisdom of crowds" schtick. Disappointing, unless he's building up to a meta-point at the end.



You can't reliably, accurately predict the lottery numbers.  It can only be a trick.  That was true a week ago and true now.  

He's always said his stuff is a mixture of things all of which are employed by other ''magicians'' to a greater or lesser extent.  When I very first saw him I looked at his website and he said anyone can do what he does.  It just involves a lot of work.  Everything around that is just for show whoever it is on the stage, including, in his case, partial and fake explanations.   

I don't understand why people seem so disappointed every time it turns out he isn't really psychic, magic or all-powerful.  He makes it his business to debunk stuff after all. 

Actually a friend of mine says his sister thinks Derren is psychic but he pretends he isn't.   

That said I've been more laissez-faire about watching his stuff as time has gone on.   Possibly just because if I am in front of a telly I am also in front of the internets.


----------



## elevendayempire (Sep 12, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> lots of complaints about brown's sexist and homophobic comment.
> it's certainly an odd comment to come from a gay man.


People are too hyper-fucking-sensitive. To those people: it's a _joke_, get the stick out of your arse. Russell T Davies got it as well, when he had Rose say, "Oh, you're so _gay_" to Doctor Who.


----------



## smmudge (Sep 12, 2009)

Sexist and homophobic? Umm..right 

I suppose thinking about it, what group of 24 people are going to guess a number that averages out at 2? Nigh on impossible!


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2009)

smmudge said:


> Sexist and homophobic? Umm..right



well it is to be fair


----------



## manifold (Sep 12, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I don't understand why people seem so disappointed every time it turns out he isn't really psychic, magic or all-powerful.  He makes it his business to debunk stuff after all.


Everyone I spoke to beforehand knew it was a trick, and tuned in expecting to see whether they'd guessed what it was correctly. Instead we got an hour of bad hocus-pocus about how automatic writing feeds from some universe-permeating lottery subconcious field. 

I'm disappointed because he used to give a convincing explanation as to how he pulled it off (whether or not it was the reality). Now it feels more like he's turned into Uri Geller.


----------



## tommers (Sep 12, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Those ones where they make an elephant or whatever disappear while surrounded by the audience in a parking lot for instance. The audience are in on it



Well, Houdini did make an elephant disappear.  But he did it with mirrors.


----------



## smmudge (Sep 12, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> well it is to be fair



No it isn't, it doesn't even make sense. It's just a shit joke.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2009)

smmudge said:


> No it isn't, it doesn't even make sense. It's just a shit joke.



it's only a bit sexist and homophobic, but it certainly is


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 12, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> it's only a bit sexist and homophobic, but it certainly is


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2009)

that made more sense in my head


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 12, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> well it is to be fair



it's not being fair though you are implying homophobia where there was clearly none the sexist part depends on whether you believe the intent was to attack women and denigrate them, which i don't believe for a second it was...

maybe in your head it's both, but then that's your issue not the issue with what's been said...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 12, 2009)

manifold said:


> Everyone I spoke to beforehand knew it was a trick, and tuned in expecting to see whether they'd guessed what it was correctly. Instead we got an hour of bad hocus-pocus about how automatic writing feeds from some universe-permeating lottery subconcious field.
> 
> I'm disappointed because he used to give a convincing explanation as to how he pulled it off (whether or not it was the reality). Now it feels more like he's turned into Uri Geller.



he did give a convincing explanation as to how he did it the wisdom of crowds was bollocks and he fixed the lottery.  Which would be far easier.  

The other way to resolve this would be to get 24 of us to do this as an experiment for about a year predicting the lottery numbers and getting the average prediction for each but not putting on the numbers at all and see if we could fall into a regular repeatable pattern.  

If we can then we of course can put cash on to the lottery once we have confidence in each others abilities to accurately predict the outcome and make a killing...

So either this is really what happened or he fixed it...

I'd have thought insider job and being able to influence security guards to hypnotise them is a far easier stunt that magically mystic powers of crowd wisdom...


----------



## Corax (Sep 12, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> The other way to resolve this would be to get 24 of us to do this as an experiment for about a year predicting the lottery numbers and getting the average prediction for each but not putting on the numbers at all and see if we could fall into a regular repeatable pattern.
> 
> If we can then we of course can put cash on to the lottery once we have confidence in each others abilities to accurately predict the outcome and make a killing...



start a thread.


----------



## smmudge (Sep 12, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> it's only a bit sexist and homophobic, but it certainly is



I think he was trying to point out, in an ironic way, how arbitrarily we distinguish traits of gender and sexuality. Just because he failed spectacularly doesn't make it a sexist or homophobic joke.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2009)

i think he was just being daft and thoughtless.
or maybe it was more misdirection....


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 12, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> i think he was just being daft and thoughtless.
> or maybe it was more misdirection....



I think *you're* being daft and thoughtless...

you really believe that someone known for their intellect in terms of the powers of suggestion and therefore the impact of each word used would carelessly use a throwaway term of phrase... and you talk about gullible..


----------



## Corax (Sep 12, 2009)

Derren a Lesbian woman.  His comment was a classic of NLP to prevent people suspecting.


----------



## smmudge (Sep 12, 2009)

That's what he WANTS us to think. He's really a straight man!


----------



## smmudge (Sep 12, 2009)

http://ninethirtyfive.wordpress.com...y-reveal-missing-footage-proves-he-rigged-it/


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 12, 2009)

Corax said:


> start a thread.



ok 

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=9687040#post9687040


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 12, 2009)

The trick was ok.

The presentation was terrible.

Let's get a woman scared of vermin and get her to put her hand in a box that may have vermin in it?   No, Derren, fuck off.   Put your own hand in the fucking box.   Anyway...there is no vermin in the box, it's on your bloody head disguised as hair!


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 12, 2009)

the whole point was to make her feel scared.


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 12, 2009)

http://poeljames.googlepages.com/HowDerrenDidIt.html


----------



## Weller (Sep 12, 2009)

STFC said:


> 1. Why was the camera shaking so badly?
> 2. His hand was clasped tightly over his mouth as all the numbers were drawn. I think he was talking into a mic hidden in his sleeve.
> 
> Red herrings, or vital to the success of the trick?




I remember when I watched it live him saying "I feel a little sick" at the start and when he did put his hand over his mouth and went quiet I immediately fixed my gaze on him away from the balls which I had been watching thinkung he may be going to have a nervous throwing up live on stage .

Misdirection in case errors happened with the green screen bit I think , especially as watching it again he does seem to produce just a  burp.

Im going with this explanation below unless he speaks out tonight after winning the roll over with his 24 mates 


True though if he wanted people talking about him its happend but Im not sure that it really has done anything to help his career as a "mentalist" or whatever it was all a bit cheap to me and I actually believed him a little before about no conjuring tricks , I think now he is just a magician using standard tricks.


----------



## smmudge (Sep 12, 2009)

Weller said:


> I remember when I watched it live him saying "I feel a little sick" at the start and when he did put his hand over his mouth and went quiet I immediately fixed my gaze on him away from the balls which I had been watching thinkung he may be going to have a nervous throwing up live on stage .
> 
> Misdirection in case errors happened with the green screen bit I think , especially as watching it again he does seem to produce just a  burp.



 

Maybe he sicked a little into his mouth.


----------



## Weller (Sep 12, 2009)

smmudge said:


> Maybe he sicked a little into his mouth.



well I know I did


----------



## discokermit (Sep 12, 2009)

magic tricks are for kids. you have to be a fucking div to be entertained by this sort of shit.


----------



## rover07 (Sep 12, 2009)

So how did he predict the numbers?

I fell asleep during last nights show...15 min before the end...what happened?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2009)

discokermit said:


> magic tricks are for kids. you have to be a fucking div to be entertained by this sort of shit.


that's your stock response for things you don't like - they're for kids 
and you NEVER do anything immature of course.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 12, 2009)

rover07 said:


> So how did he predict the numbers?
> 
> I fell asleep during last nights show...15 min before the end...what happened?



He didn't predict them!


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2009)

rover07 said:


> So how did he predict the numbers?
> 
> I fell asleep during last nights show...15 min before the end...what happened?



he didn't predict the numbers. it's a trick.
not telling (you could always read the thread or look it up on tinternets)


----------



## T & P (Sep 12, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


> http://poeljames.googlepages.com/HowDerrenDidIt.html


 There have been a few other similar websites coming up claiming pretty much the same thing, and it certainly seems the most likely explanation.

Though one thing has to be handed to him: he's certainly got the attention of us fucker like nothing else. It's amazing the amount of effort some people have put trying to explain how it was done. Look at the number of webpages like this one put up within 48 hours of the 'prediction'...


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 12, 2009)

Are any of those people who claim they know how it's done going to predict next weeks numbers?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2009)

DexterTCN said:


> Are any of those people who claim they know how it's done going to predict next weeks numbers?



erm, no. because the people who know how it's done know that the numbers weren't predicted.


----------



## Thora (Sep 12, 2009)

DexterTCN said:


> Are any of those people who claim they know how it's done going to predict next weeks numbers?



It's a camera trick.


----------



## rover07 (Sep 12, 2009)

so....did he reveal how it was done or not?

Cos i cant find it on internet


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 12, 2009)

rover07 said:


> so....did he reveal how it was done or not?
> 
> Cos i cant find it on internet


google derren brown events ffs. it's on wikipedia/news - all over the net


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 12, 2009)

smmudge said:


> http://ninethirtyfive.wordpress.com...y-reveal-missing-footage-proves-he-rigged-it/



Because Derren wouldn't play with the studio audience, would he? 

I think it is unlikely he would break the law.  I don't think he loves his job enough to do time for it.


----------



## rover07 (Sep 12, 2009)

So Brown is saying he really did predict it...thats just shit...i want to know how the trick works...not wade through acres of bullshit


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 12, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I think it is unlikely he would break the law.  I don't think he loves his job enough to do time for it.



judge: so oyu fixed the lottery for a tv show
DB: look in to the eyes not around the eyes into the eyes repeat after me I see nothing wrong here case dismissed...
Judge: see nothing wrong here case...

etc...


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

rover07 said:


> So Brown is saying he really did predict it...



No.


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 12, 2009)

rover07 said:


> So Brown is saying he really did predict it...thats just shit...i want to know how the trick works...not wade through acres of bullshit



No, he spent an hours worth of TV show saying he predicted it by magic, then at the very end said 'or it could just be a trick.'

It was done with a green screen and artificial camera shake.


----------



## Santino (Sep 12, 2009)

Weller said:


> True though if he wanted people talking about him its happend but Im not sure that it really has done anything to help his career as a "mentalist" or whatever it was all a bit cheap to me and I actually believed him a little before about no conjuring tricks , I think now he is just a magician using standard tricks.


He's always been a magician. The whole mentalist schtick is just a part of the misdirection, for the most part. At the beginning of all his shows he says it's a combination of pyschology, showmanship and magic (i.e. sodding conjuring tricks).


----------



## rikwakefield (Sep 12, 2009)

rover07 said:


> So Brown is saying he really did predict it...thats just shit...i want to know how the trick works...not wade through acres of bullshit



The unbelivable nature of his real explaination and the fact he alluded to it tells me this was just a trick. Pretty disappointing really.


----------



## Weller (Sep 13, 2009)

Theres a little update here to the previous "reveal video" showing how the earlier juggling trick was done for any still believing that he never has used camera tricks or can juggle one handed whilst talking and not looking 
It also shows his Clue solution...


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 13, 2009)

Weller said:


> Theres a little update here to the previous "reveal video" showing how the earlier juggling trick was done for any still believing that he never has used camera tricks or can juggle one handed whilst talking and not looking
> It also shows his Clue solution...



This guy is on the money.

I mean, come on.. how obvious was the snow flake reference. And the digital shake - its so obvious when you look back.

All that Deep Maths twoddle. haha yah rly.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 13, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> judge: so oyu fixed the lottery for a tv show
> DB: look in to the eyes not around the eyes into the eyes repeat after me I see nothing wrong here case dismissed...
> Judge: see nothing wrong here case...
> 
> etc...



Cunning.  Now it all makes perfect sense.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Sep 13, 2009)

skyscraper101 said:


> This guy is on the money.
> 
> I mean, come on.. how obvious was the snow flake reference. And the digital shake - its so obvious when you look back.
> 
> All that Deep Maths twoddle. haha yah rly.


where do you get this snowflake from and how does that indicate evidence of camera trickery?


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 13, 2009)

He held up a snowflake in one of the post-prediction, pre-reveal adverts. It implies that he did it by freezing part of the frame, as does the other advert which had him juggling four lottery balls in one hand, which was done using the same technique.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 13, 2009)

rover07 said:


> so....did he reveal how it was done or not?
> 
> Cos i cant find it on internet


  Do people still not get this? He is an entertainer, not a real wizard. He plays tricks.  His "explanations" are part of the show.  It was too good a trick for him to give it away.  But if you really expected him to, then of course you'll have been disappointed by Friday's show.


----------



## foo (Sep 13, 2009)

rikwakefield said:


> The unbelivable nature of his real explaination and the fact he alluded to it tells me this was just a trick. Pretty disappointing really.



of course it was a trick!

did you expect him to really be able to do it then? 

sorry, but, lol.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 13, 2009)

rikwakefield said:


> this was just a trick. Pretty disappointing really.




Brilliant.


----------



## Maggot (Sep 13, 2009)

cliche guevara said:


> It was DEFINITELY split screened.


Proof?


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm starting to suspect that David Copperfield can't really fly.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 13, 2009)

Santino said:


> I'm starting to suspect that David Copperfield can't really fly.


 It's just a _trick_?


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2009)

Maggot said:


> Proof?



tis the only rational explanation


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 13, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> tis the only *Obvious* explanation



Fixed it for you.

unless you discount him fixing the lottery...


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2009)

that wouldn't be rational


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> tis the only rational explanation



Other than deep maths.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 13, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> Fixed it for you.
> 
> unless you discount him fixing the lottery...


Are you saying Derren Brown fixing the national lottery for trick on a TV show on C4 is a _rational_ explanation?


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 13, 2009)

Santino said:


> I'm starting to suspect that David Copperfield can't really fly.



Tsch.  That man's an out and out fraud. 

I think it's amazing that they always manage to put scantily clad women back together again the correct way without any signs of trauma after sawing them up.  It must be really hard to line them up properly, all the veins and nerves and stuff. 

What I don't understand is why they don't take up careers as surgeons.  That's the sort of skill we could really do with in the NHS.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 13, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Tsch.  That man's an out and out fraud.
> 
> I think it's amazing that they always manage to put scantily clad women back together again the correct way without any signs of trauma after sawing them up.  It must be really hard to line them up properly, all the veins and nerves and stuff.
> 
> What I don't understand is why they don't take up careers as surgeons.  That's the sort of skill we could really do with in the NHS.


True.  Wasting it on entertainment and showing off!


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2009)

pfffft - anyone can do what david copperfield can do:


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 13, 2009)

danny la rouge said:


> Are you saying Derren Brown fixing the national lottery for trick on a TV show on C4 is a _rational_ explanation?



the mans a trickster who prides himself in his ability to misdirect and direct people into doing things he wants to do it's his whole bag.

So is it more likely that he would be able to influence people who may or may not know who he is via the power of suggestion considering that previously he's managed to get them to do bank jobs and other batshit mental things through the powers of suggestibility.  considering his talent for this how hard would it be to hypnotise security guards at the ball collection point twice to get the balls in and out and have them erase the security video or feed or replace it with other prerecorded security looped tape... 

cos that's the only difficult part he needed to do everything else is manufacturing the balls costly but possible certainly he'll make the money back from the DVD sales.

Then all he needs is an in and time to prepare, now if he's been doing this for a year it might have taken a years worth of planning to learn security route set up fake security feeds but none of this is impossible.

It basically hinges on whether or not he's good enough as a hypnotist to suggestable people who happen to be security guards... 

then deny it all for ever and being the OCD freak he is (exceptionally obsessional) he'd have covered his tracks... 

so plausible sure possible definitely rational comes down to whether or not you think he's as good as he's previously proved himself to be in putting things in peoples heads and making their suggestible arses do shit...


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 13, 2009)

So, not rational, then.


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> the mans a trickster who prides himself in his ability to misdirect and direct people into doing things he wants to do it's his whole bag.
> 
> So is it more likely that he would be able to influence people who may or may not know who he is via the power of suggestion considering that previously he's managed to get them to do bank jobs and other batshit mental things through the powers of suggestibility.  considering his talent for this how hard would it be to hypnotise security guards at the ball collection point twice to get the balls in and out and have them erase the security video or feed or replace it with other prerecorded security looped tape...
> 
> ...



Hope you don't mind, but I've emailed your post to Scotland Yard.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2009)

it's not rational to perform a serious crime live on television


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> it's not rational to perform a serious crime live on television



That's exactly what he wants you to think.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> That's exactly what he wants you to think.


  Literal lol, there.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 13, 2009)

This thread is more entertaining than the trick.

It was just chroma key done live. And if the shaky digital camera effects, lack of live audience, pre-reveal trailer with him holding a FROZEN snowflake, and video evidence of a misplaced ball isn't enough to prove it then I don't know what is.

DEEP maths! The power of groups! Influencing a MACHINE! LOL.


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

skyscraper101 said:


> This thread is more entertaining than the trick.
> 
> It was just chroma key done live. And if the shaky digital camera effects, lack of live audience, pre-reveal trailer with him holding a FROZEN snowflake, and video evidence of a misplaced ball isn't enough to prove it then I don't know what is.
> 
> DEEP maths! The power of groups! Influencing a MACHINE! LOL.



Yet another idiot that dismisses deep maths just because they don't understand it.  NEWSFLASH: Some people are smarter than you, sunshine.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 13, 2009)

I think the dismissal of 'deep maths' is based more on all of the mathematics professors calling it utter bullshit.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Yet another idiot that dismisses deep maths just because they don't understand it.  NEWSFLASH: Some people are smarter than you, sunshine.



ORLY? Well how about a professor of Pure Maths at Oxford University and a professor of public understanding of risk at University of Cambridge?




			
				Professor of Pure Mathematics at University of Oxford Roger Heath-Brown said:
			
		

> Mathematically it is complete rubbish. It is a bluff on his part. He is doing it some other way that is clear.






			
				David Spiegelhalter said:
			
		

> 'There is a difference between guessing between the weight of a cake compared with guessing lottery balls, which is unguessable.
> 'That is just a clear wind-up and complete nonsense. There is absolutely no way he did that - he can't get away with that as a serious explanation.



Deep Maths! Fuck off


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

Balbi said:


> I think the dismissal of 'deep maths' is based more on all of the mathematics professors calling it utter bullshit.



Proof or STFU.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Yet another idiot that dismisses deep maths just because they don't understand it.  NEWSFLASH: Some people are smarter than you, sunshine.



YEAH!  Maths is _deep,_ man.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2009)

Balbi said:


> I think the dismissal of 'deep maths' is based more on all of the mathematics professors calling it utter bullshit.


pah - what do they know


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

skyscraper101 said:


> ORLY? Well how about a professor of Pure Maths at Oxford University and a professor of public understanding of risk at University of Cambridge?



Do you not think that Derren's already approached these people and briefed them on what to say?  He's had a *year* to prepare FFS, and Oxbridge would have been near the top of his list.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2009)

well said:
http://botherer.org/2009/09/12/far-too-many-words-on-derren-brown-the-lottery/


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Do you not think that Derren's already approached these people and briefed them on what to say?  He's had a *year* to prepare FFS, and Oxbridge would have been near the top of his list.



Why would he want them to discredit his own 'system' and add weight to the chroma key explanation after he's just done an hour long show explaining that it was his bullshit deep maths approach?


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

skyscraper101 said:


> Why would he want them to discredit his own 'system' and add weight to the chroma key explanation after he's just done an hour long show explaining that it was his bullshit deep maths approach?



It's 'white noise', mental distraction and disinformation.  It provokes uncertainty and blurs the boundaries between fact and illusion, which is exactly the territory DB operates in.  FFS I thought this kind of shit was _obvious_.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> It's 'white noise', mental distraction and disinformation.





I really think you're taking Derren Brown WAY too seriously on this one.

Do you really think Oxford and Cambridge professors haven't got better things to be doing with their time than giving sound-bites to the press about how Derren himself is talking nonsense?

The only disinformation if the hour long show and his 'spooky' explanation for guessing the numbers. I trust if it is at all possible, then there'll be a increase in number of jackpot winners every week from now on?


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 13, 2009)

lol people are stupid lol


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 13, 2009)

Balbi said:


> I think the dismissal of 'deep maths' is based more on all of the mathematics professors calling it utter bullshit.





skyscraper101 said:


> I really think you're taking Derren Brown WAY too seriously on this one.
> 
> Do you really think Oxford and Cambridge professors haven't got better things to be doing with their time than giving sound-bites to the press about how Derren himself is talking nonsense?
> 
> The only disinformation if the hour long show and his 'spooky' explanation for guessing the numbers. I trust if it is at all possible, then there'll be a increase in number of jackpot winners every week from now on?



I think you're taking Corax too seriously. 



At least I hope so.


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

skyscraper101 said:


> Do you really think Oxford and Cambridge professors haven't got better things to be doing with their time than giving sound-bites to the press about how Derren himself is talking nonsense?



Professors aren't exactly rich are they?  Food for thought like...


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 13, 2009)

yeah i let one suck me off for £20 the other day


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I think you're taking Corax too seriously.



Another one for the _'I'm not smart enough to understand it so it can't be true'_ list.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Another one for the _'I'm not smart enough to understand it so it can't be true'_ list.



i don't need to be smart!  


I have kabbes for that.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Professors aren't exactly rich are they?  Food for thought like...



Corax, hard up as an Oxbridge Professor might be (and they're not that hard up trust me), it's a very tenuous explanation to suggest that they have been 'briefed' by Derren Brown - who himself would have had to approach every mainstream reporter and brief them on who to ask too - unless he was prepared to go round the country buying off professors of any merit, not to mention countless other academics and mathematicians.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 13, 2009)

This thread is win. 


Derren will be pleased.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2009)

skyscraper101 said:


> Corax, hard up as an Oxbridge Professor might be (and they're not that hard up trust me), it's a very tenuous explanation to suggest that they have been 'briefed' by Derren Brown - who himself would have had to approach every mainstream reporter and brief them on who to ask too - unless he was prepared to go round the country buying off professors of any merit, not to mention countless other academics and mathematicians.



that's obviously what happened


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

skyscraper101 said:


> Corax, hard up as an Oxbridge Professor might be (and they're not that hard up trust me), it's a very tenuous explanation to suggest that they have been 'briefed' by Derren Brown - who himself would have had to approach every mainstream reporter and brief them on who to ask too - unless he was prepared to go round the country buying off professors of any merit, not to mention countless other academics and mathematicians.



He's had a year FFS.


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 13, 2009)

STFC said:


> 1. Why was the camera shaking so badly?
> 2. His hand was clasped tightly over his mouth as all the numbers were drawn. I think he was talking into a mic hidden in his sleeve.
> 
> Red herrings, or vital to the success of the trick?



1) The 'camera shake' was there to persuade us that the camera filming was really the handheld one we saw at the beginning. In magician's speak it was a 'convincer'.

2) Just adding tension. 'OMG it could all go wrong'


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> 1) The 'camera shake' was there to persuade us that the camera filming was really the handheld one we saw at the beginning. In magician's speak it was a 'convincer'.
> 
> 2) Just adding tension. 'OMG it could all go wrong'



He doesn't need any of that bollocks, just a decent grasp of deep maths.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> He's had a year FFS.



Oh well that settles it then, it must be true - he told us!


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 13, 2009)

get a grip!


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

Orang Utan said:


> get a grip!



_Exactly!_


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 13, 2009)

deep maths gives me a stiffy


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 13, 2009)

How deep is your maths ?


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


> deep maths gives me a stiffy



I wouldn't go quite that far (!), but I'm a big fan too.  That's why it's so upsetting to see so many posters on what I _thought_ was a fairly intelligent message board stuggling to grasp it.  They seem far happier thinking it was camera trickery rather than understanding that it was all just _science_.


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 13, 2009)

but it was a camera trick you noob...


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


> but it was a camera trick you noob...



No, it was just fucking *maths*.  

Idiot.


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 13, 2009)

I fucked your maths


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 13, 2009)

Twice


----------



## 1927 (Sep 13, 2009)

He didn'y predict anything thod did he? He told us what the numbers were after they had been drawn, now even I could tell you that.


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 13, 2009)

if you used deep maths that is....

how deep is your maths?

have you payed the right people off?

did you draw numbers on you walls at home for a year?


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> He doesn't need any of that bollocks, just a decent grasp of deep maths.



Corax please tell me you are pulling our legs? Do you really believed he could actually predict the lottery numbers in advance of the draw, inexplicably failing to back up his guess in this case by purchasing a winning ticket?

A sound grasp of mathematics will tell you this: whatever system you use to predict the numbers, it _must have precisely the same chance of success_ as any other.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 13, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Corax please tell me you are pulling our legs? Do you really believed he could actually predict the lottery numbers in advance of the draw, inexplicably failing to back up his guess in this case by purchasing a winning ticket?
> 
> A sound grasp of mathematics will tell you this: whatever system you use to predict the numbers, it _must have precisely the same chance of success_ as any other.



if you'd fixed it you'd not buy a ticket to claim you hadn't profited from it...


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> I wouldn't go quite that far (!), but I'm a big fan too.  That's why it's so upsetting to see so many posters on what I _thought_ was a fairly intelligent message board stuggling to grasp it.  They seem far happier thinking it was camera trickery rather than understanding that it was all just _science_.



I love science.  I worked out my boyfriend loves me 88% using deep maths the other day.


----------



## Santino (Sep 13, 2009)

Out of interest, is there any evidence for or against a random ball selector being susceptible to manipulation by having some balls heavier than other? And not just the heavier balls being selected slightly more often than the others, but the 6 heavier balls coming out at the first attempt? Because if that's wildly improbable then it makes the split-screen explanation (or something similar) pretty much the only plausible one.


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

Jazzz said:


> Corax please tell me you are pulling our legs?



Well, you know.....

No! It was Deep Maths!  


I do think I'm quite good at playing the idiot though.  What that says about me is slightly worrying perhaps...


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 13, 2009)

*poor show Derren*

My respect for Derren Brown has really dropped with this stunt... it was previously somewhere near 'reverence', but this has plummeted it.

Setting such a grand stage I really thought something completely mind-blowing was going to come.

_I was expecting Derren's numbers to come before the lottery announcement_

Now maybe that's just impossible, but the sky doesn't seem to have limited Mr. Brown in the past. As it was, we were plainly being treated to a trick, and the question is how it was done.

Now without camera effects, it would have been a damn impressive trick for sure. But the truth is he used camera effects - and for a magician to do this, well there was a thread years back where someone suggested he used a camera trick and I argued against it on the basis that Derren would have far too much self-respect, it's like horse-stealing for magicians.

With his bogus 'explanation' he's gone into Uri Geller territory. Only I don't think Uri used camera tricks.

Even worse, _he's got caught_ doing it.

The levitating ball is proof of course.

Another thing worth paying attention to is the dog's dinner of how the numbers are lined up. Watch Derren 'tidy' up the alignment of each ball while he reads the numbers out. I suspect he was really thinking 'oh ***' when he saw them


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> I love science.  I worked out my boyfriend loves me 88% using deep maths the other day.



I hope you confronted him about who he's using the other 14% on.


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> Well, you know.....
> 
> No! It was Deep Maths!
> 
> ...


oh phew


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 13, 2009)

But he couldn't have revealed them before the call because THE LOTTERY NUMBERS CANNOT BE RELIABLY PREDICTED.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> I hope you confronted him about who he's using the other 14% on.



I haven't as yet. Not even that rogue 2%.  I'm saving it for when I've done something wrong.


----------



## 1927 (Sep 13, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> But he couldn't have revealed them before the call because THE LOTTERY NUMBERS CANNOT BE RELIABLY PREDICTED.



I loved his bullshit explanation of this as well. Camelot have the rights to broadcast the lottery numbers, so as not to infringe that right he couldn't tell us the numbers before the draw. Isn't that the whole point of a prediction tho, that you tell people before anevent happens?

We all know he didnt actually predict the numbers, but if he wants to disprove us doubters then maybe he could have purchased a ticket and given it to a charity, they could then have claimed the prize.

For someone who is usually up for every bit of promotion, then why didnt he have an audience? Well I know why, but ykwim!


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Not even that rogue 2%.



The 2% doesn't exist, it's "borrowed" from a different time-frame.*  If you understood deep maths you'd understand that!*


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 13, 2009)

Corax said:


> The 2% doesn't exist, it's "borrowed" from a different time-frame.*  If you understood deep maths you'd understand that!*



What do you think I mean by ''rogue''?!   



> originally posted by *deep maths glossary of terms*
> rogue - non-existant, ''borrowed'' from a different timeframe



Use a dictionary once in a while, eh.


----------



## Corax (Sep 13, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> What do you think I mean by ''rogue''?!
> 
> 
> 
> Use a dictionary once in a while, eh.



Fucking hell!  Are you a Deep Maths sensei?  I've been looking for someone to apprentice with for ages.


----------



## Jazzz (Sep 13, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> But he couldn't have revealed them before the call because THE LOTTERY NUMBERS CANNOT BE RELIABLY PREDICTED.



Well, quite. But there are ways in theory that it could be achieved. I was expecting something to do with the time delay, which is normally 3-5 seconds for sporting events (I know that from sports betting on betfair).

Alternatively, he might have somehow corrupted the machines, or hijacked the BBC broadcast with mind control and got them to play his tape instead of the live feed. Now either one of those would be unparalleled feats and very very naughty, but theoretical possibilities

At the very least, I was expecting him to produce a winning ticket with five numbers on it (which could of course have been accomplished by a brute force approach).


----------



## Weller (Sep 13, 2009)

What I find strange about all this is that a lot of the people I have met today that I mentioned it too they almost all stated that Derren Brown would never do camera tricks , but we know thats false unless anyone really beleives he can juggle one handed like that  , that advert was obviously split screen the proof I think this guy shows in the video below and was an obvious clue to this .

If Derren is ok with camera splitscreen in adverts for his shows then why is it so hard for some to believe that he would use them in a trick 

I think it would be crazy to think that Derren isnt using splitscreen in this advert on the run up to the "Deep Maths Event" 





his older one 


Im also  a bit pissed off that Derren slagging magicians off in the past is resorting to the same old conjuring tricks dressed up as mentalism
heres an old video of him acting the dick and taking the p*ss out of "magicians"


----------



## foo (Sep 14, 2009)

i've been watching him having a chat with ole Dawkins.


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 14, 2009)

I bet he loves fishsticks


----------



## ouchmonkey (Sep 14, 2009)

foo said:


> i've been watching him having a chat with ole Dawkins.



heh heh







Dawkins used to really irritate me but his yaffle-ness is getting more likable.


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 15, 2009)




----------



## Jonti (Sep 15, 2009)

foo said:


> i've been watching him having a chat with ole Dawkins.


Thanks for these! Two great and honest minds in earnest discussion on the general matter of illusion and delusion. 

The fourth is fascinating for its discussion of the pernicious effects of cultural relativism.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 15, 2009)

Yeah, thanks for the link, because they were very interesting.  (Well, except for the third one, which just told me "not allowed in your territory".)  I liked the tricks of cold reading!


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 15, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, thanks for the link, because they were very interesting.  (Well, except for the third one, which just told me "not allowed in your territory".)  I liked the tricks of cold reading!



Did you see the actual programme he did where he gave 10 people a reading, 2 sides of A4, quite detailed, had most of them agree they were fabulously accurate, only to discover they had exactly the same reading?  

He did the same thing with brits, yanks and spaniards I think. 

I think his debunking stuff is some of his best.  



Yet my ex flatmate's sister _still_ thinks he is psychic but denies it for some reason....


----------



## kabbes (Sep 15, 2009)

Yes -- the Barnham test, I think it's called.  He talks about that in the interview (as you probably realise).  It was really great!


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 15, 2009)

I've only watched the first part, which mentions it.  I'm gonna watch the rest though.  

Dawkins is indeed yafflish.


----------



## Paul Russell (Sep 15, 2009)

kabbes said:


> Yes -- the Barnham test, I think it's called.  He talks about that in the interview (as you probably realise).  It was really great!



Phineas Taylor Barnum -- the circus bloke. He was a bit like Brown, I think, using deception himself but also debunking spiritualists/mediums, etc.


----------



## PacificOcean (Sep 15, 2009)

According to the Sun *spit* this morning - he already had predicted the numbers last Christmas - however Channel 4 "cut" this bit for "timing reasons".

I think there is going to be more to this trick on his next show on Friday.  

Especially as it seems to tie in with the snowflake thing?


----------



## cliche guevara (Sep 15, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> According to the Sun *spit* this morning - he already had predicted the numbers last Christmas - however Channel 4 "cut" this bit for "timing reasons".
> 
> I think there is going to be more to this trick on his next show on Friday.
> 
> Especially as it seems to tie in with the snowflake thing?



This was mentioned on a blog that was posted earlier on in the thread (can't be bothered to sift through and find it). The blog sounded like waffle written by an idiot, and I assume that's The Sun's source, so I reckon it's bollocks.


----------



## Santino (Sep 16, 2009)

Looks like the Telegraph has uncovered the actual, mundane, solution: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wi...own-use-sealions-to-pick-lottery-numbers.html

It's a bit of a letdown really.


----------



## foo (Sep 16, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> Did you see the actual programme he did where he gave 10 people a reading, 2 sides of A4, quite detailed, had most of them agree they were fabulously accurate, only to discover they had exactly the same reading?
> 
> He did the same thing with brits, yanks and spaniards I think.
> 
> I think his debunking stuff is some of his best.



yep me too. love it. and i find it strangely comforting. 

ouchmonkey -  i hadn't registered that likeness. uncanny!


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 16, 2009)

> IT'S the question everyone is asking: How did Derren Brown manage to come up with such an obviously bullshit explanation for his tedious lottery trick?
> 
> Millions of viewers were stunned by Brown's claim that he got 24 people to think of six numbers each and then worked out the averages to predict the lottery result in a technique known to psychologists and mathematicians as 'automatic bullshitting'.
> 
> ...





http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...en-brown's-bullshit-explanation-200909142055/


----------



## kabbes (Sep 16, 2009)

I like it!


----------



## Santino (Sep 16, 2009)

With a lot of commentators I can't tell if they realise that Derren didn't seriously expect anyone with any nous to realise that the wisdom of crowds bit was rubbish. I fear some people are getting angry for the wrong reasons.


----------



## London_Calling (Sep 16, 2009)

You know, I sometimes think a few of us could sit down and knock up something at least as good as that stuff.


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Sep 16, 2009)

Whens this sitting on the sofa thing then?


----------



## Weller (Sep 16, 2009)

Theres a few "outakes" appearing on the net 


I expect they will improve and grow in number


----------



## Structaural (Sep 16, 2009)

love the 'fucking hell' at the end


----------



## Daniel (Sep 16, 2009)

ATOMIC SUPLEX said:


> Whens this sitting on the sofa thing then?



If this does work, and you turn off the TV, will you be able to evarrr stand up?


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 17, 2009)

Um, I missed tonight's programme.  

Is there another thread on it? 

Where are you all? 

Are you all still stuck to your sofas? 






I'm scared now.


----------



## strung out (Sep 17, 2009)

there wasnt a program tonight was there? i wouldnt know, i was in the pub.


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 17, 2009)

i don't think so, not on all channels anyway


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 17, 2009)

Oh.  I thought it was Wednesdays. 

I am less scared now.


----------



## T & P (Sep 17, 2009)

It's tomorrow (Friday).


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Sep 17, 2009)

Sorry if this has already been posted... but this is how it was done.



Derren Brown's deep maths explanation was complete nonsense.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 17, 2009)

urb said:


> Derren Brown's deep maths explanation was complete nonsense.




Hey, lads.  We've got another one who doesn't understand deep maths.


----------



## Corax (Sep 17, 2009)

Yep.  Epic deep maths fail.


----------



## ebay sex moomin (Sep 17, 2009)

"how DEEP is your MATHS?
(deep is your maths, how deep is YOUR maths?)
I really need to learn..."


----------



## foo (Sep 18, 2009)

are you lot still at it? 

tonight i hope to be glued to my sofa. literally.


----------



## Jonti (Sep 18, 2009)

PacificOcean said:


> According to the Sun *spit* this morning - he already had predicted the numbers last Christmas - however Channel 4 "cut" this bit for "timing reasons".
> 
> I think there is going to be more to this trick on his next show on Friday.
> 
> Especially as it seems to tie in with the snowflake thing?


I'm beginning to suspect that the real target of Brown's lottery stunt is the uncritical stupidity and depravity of the media.

These cunts will affect to believe anything, and encourage the most deluded and stupid beliefs, if only it makes 'em some cash


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 18, 2009)

foo said:


> are you lot still at it?
> 
> tonight i hope to be glued to my sofa. literally.



I'll never give up until the world understands deep maths. 

It's a travesty that it isn't taught as standard in comprehensives.


----------



## Obnoxiousness (Sep 18, 2009)

Shallow maths, I can pretty much do in my head.  But deep mathematics, even when equipped with my trusty Texas Instruments scientific calculator, I simply cannot grasp.

e2a:

It's like deep sea fishing... you need to strap yourself to the boat, as well as using a thicker rod.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 18, 2009)

Please don't blame yourself.  You are not alone. 

You have been terribly let down by the education system.


----------



## teecee (Sep 18, 2009)

Hmm was Derren been practicing in Bulgaria first, hoping no-one would notice?

Can this be explained by deep maths?

Or is it all just an unfathomable coincidence?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8259801.stm


----------



## Paul Russell (Sep 18, 2009)

teecee said:


> Hmm was Derren been practicing in Bulgaria first, hoping no-one would notice?
> 
> Can this be explained by deep maths?
> 
> ...



"A mathematician said the chance of the same six numbers coming up twice in a row was one in four million."

I suppose with all the lotteries going on every week, it's going to happen in the end.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2009)

Paul Russell said:


> "A mathematician said the chance of the same six numbers coming up twice in a row was one in four million."
> 
> I suppose with all the lotteries going on every week, it's going to happen in the end.



The chance of it happening is exactly the same as the chance of any one ticket winning. Which happens regularly, so not that odd really.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 18, 2009)

The chance of the same six numbers coming up twice in a row _without specifying in advance what those numbers must be_ is a great deal bigger than the chance of any one ticket winning.


----------



## maomao (Sep 18, 2009)

kabbes said:


> The chance of the same six numbers coming up twice in a row _without specifying in advance what those numbers must be_ is a great deal bigger than the chance of any one ticket winning.



Why? Surely it's the same as buying a lucky dip and then winning. Two random choices. If you specified them in advance the chances would be much lower, 1 in 14 squared rather than 1 in 14 million.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 18, 2009)

maomao said:


> Why? Surely it's the same as buying a lucky dip and then winning. Two random choices.


It depends on exactly how the question is phrased.  It could easily be the difference between the probability of two people in a room sharing a birthday and the probability that somebody in the room shares your birthday.


----------



## ymu (Sep 18, 2009)

maomao said:


> The chance of it happening is exactly the same as the chance of any one ticket winning. Which happens regularly, so not that odd really.


Yes. No. The odds are the same, but there are nowhere near as many lotteries being run as there are lottery tickets being bought each week, so the same numbers coming up twice in a row will be considerably rarer than the someone winning the lottery in any one week.

But yeah, run enough lotteries and it'll happen somewhere, eventually. We don't mentally keep tally of all the times we were not amazed to see the numbers being different each week, so it seems extraordinary when it happens.


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 18, 2009)

My friend just phoned me!   I hadn't been thinking about her at all in the last couple of days.


----------



## ymu (Sep 18, 2009)

kabbes said:


> It depends on exactly how the question is phrased.  It could easily be the difference between the probability of two people in a room sharing a birthday and the probability that somebody in the room shares your birthday.


Yeah. The chance of it happening in any one lottery are the same as any one set of numbers winning. The chances of it happening in any one of the lotteries running worldwide in any one week are much much higher.

Not sure it's analogous to the birthdays paradox though. For that, we'd have to be looking at the chance of the same numbers coming up in two different lotteries. That would be a much more common occurrence.


----------



## teecee (Sep 18, 2009)

maomao said:


> The chance of it happening is exactly the same as the chance of any one ticket winning. Which happens regularly, so not that odd really.



But things like this shouldn't happen - same reason we've never had 1,2,3,4,5,6 come up 


Although I am being a bit flippant and  actually have no problems with coincidences happenings - if there weren't any that would be worrying ....  but this case just goes to show how little people do understand about these things - same number come up two weeks in a  row (in a different order though) so there must be something wrong - lets have an investigation.

Although there must be people out there who think it will happen as 18 people bought tickets with the same numbers that had just been drawn  -although this might be the reason it needs investigating


----------



## internetstalker (Sep 18, 2009)

quimcunx said:


> My friend just phoned me!   I hadn't been thinking about her at all in the last couple of days.



Some deep maths going on there


----------



## kabbes (Sep 18, 2009)

To be fair, if a lottery machine turns up the same numbers for two weeks in a row, that is reasonable grounds for investigating that nothing untoward is happening.  The probability of a fix is at least comparable with the probability of the event.


----------



## Ranbay (Sep 21, 2009)

DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP MATHS !!!

http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE58H4AM20090918


----------



## strung out (Sep 21, 2009)

B0B2oo9 said:


> DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP MATHS !!!
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE58H4AM20090918



derren brown guessing the numbers was probably a coincidence too then


----------

