(UK) Derren Brown
nigel
the live UK National Lottery draw, illusionist Derren Brown will attempt
to predict the lottery numbers.
There's an hour long follow-up on Friday explaining 'how he did it'.
Evil Nigel
Nik Barker
It will certainly be fascinating to see how well he does, and perhaps
more interesting will be to see his explanation on Friday...especially
if he needs to explain how he got none right.
What's also interesting is that he's managed to convince the top brass
at Channel 4 to show his predictions across it's entire network
including More 4, Film 4 etc...I wonder what convinced them...and
whether they've bought a ticket...?
Cheers
Nik
nigel
Camelot have apparently 'banned' Derren Brown from buying a ticket, but
otherwise they're 'relaxed' about his stunt.
You need two televisions to watch the programmes simultaneously on
Wednesday night.
Evil Nigel
Nik Barker
Hi Nigel
I wonder if you or I told Camelot that we could predict the numbers
whether they'd ban us also - without any proof.
Are they admitting that the lottery isn't a truly random and
unpredictable event then? (I could have told them that! ;) )
If they're banning him from buying a ticket (how reasonably could they
do that, anyone else could buy one on his behalf), then they must not
want him to win (and believe that he can do it) - if he can do it and
he's going to tell everyone else how to do it this Friday, then
presumably they'll ban everyone that watches his Friday show?
Cheers
Nik
nigel
It could be that the tabloids have exaggerated the situation - Derren
Brown is 'predicting' the numbers well after the closure time for ticket
purchase.
On the other hand, the 'celebs' they use to start the draws sometimes
are banned from buying tickets, and I understand the ban applies to
their immediate families too.
nigel
For those who have been following this thread from abroad, Derren Brown
claimed to have 'predicted' the numbers earlier and written them down on
balls which were facing away from the camera. He then turned on a telly
showing a 'live' feed from the BBC of the lottery draw, keeping his
balls in view. After the draw he rotated the stand on which his balls
were sitting to show the same six numbers as were drawn by Camelot.
I'm not sure how he did it, other than it involved some form of
illusion. If it had been a genuine prediction, he would have revealed
his numbers before the draw. (And no, I didn't see the bear moonwalk
across the screen, write the numbers on the balls, then breakdance back
again).
In his 'sales' patter he said he was sick to his stomach with worry, he
was hoping for at least a 5-match, and he had covered the walls of his
house with lottery numbers.
Evil Nigel
Paracelsus
Paracelsus
The publicity machine of the sceptic illusionist and the failing Channel 4
pulled out all the stops on this one. Extensive comments on their website
( http://derrenbrown.channel4.com/derren-brown-the-events-win.shtml )
ranging from the credulous to the downright weird. The most popular
explanation is some sort of split screen trickery, but that's really not his
style. I'm looking forward to the explanation tomorrow.
Funny how he spent a year obsessing over his predictions, but then nearly
fluffed it at the end.
Also funny that a guy raking in as much as he does doesn't know the
difference between a thousand and a million. :)
Anyone who missed it can catch it on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG-5qebwflA
nigel
For the benefit of those living abroad, Derren Brown spent 55 minutes of
his hour long prog (that includes ad breaks) building up the theory that
he had a team of 24 (or was it 23?) people in a semi-trance writing down
numbers using 'automatic writing' then taking the averages.
Then in the last few minutes or so, he stated that he didn't manufacture
8 sets of replacement lottery balls weighing more than normal balls
bearing the 6 required numbers (and he showed a set he 'didn't' have
made), and he didn't get an insider to swap them for the correct balls
just before the draw then swap them out again afterwards.
In my opinion both methods were meant to serve as misdirection and the
real method, probably some optical trickery, remains unrevealed.
Evil Nigel
Paracelsus
Very disappointing.
nigel
> "nigel" <use...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:27GdnTscsJ-N4TbX...@brightview.co.uk...
> |
> | For the benefit of those living abroad, Derren Brown spent 55 minutes of
> | his hour long prog (that includes ad breaks) building up the theory that
> | he had a team of 24 (or was it 23?) people in a semi-trance writing down
> | numbers using 'automatic writing' then taking the averages.
> |
> | Then in the last few minutes or so, he stated that he didn't manufacture
> | 8 sets of replacement lottery balls weighing more than normal balls
> | bearing the 6 required numbers (and he showed a set he 'didn't' have
> | made), and he didn't get an insider to swap them for the correct balls
> | just before the draw then swap them out again afterwards.
> |
> | In my opinion both methods were meant to serve as misdirection and the
> | real method, probably some optical trickery, remains unrevealed.
> |
> | Evil Nigel
> |
>
>
> Very disappointing.
>
Someone should report him to the advertising standards authority because
contrary to the trailers shown beforehand, he didn't tell us how he did it.
Paracelsus
The sceptics aren't very happy with him either, as he has the left the door
open for lottery prediction by group working, automatic writing, etc, so he
seems to have hacked everybody off.
|
nigel
>
> The sceptics aren't very happy with him either, as he has the left the door
> open for lottery prediction by group working, automatic writing, etc, so he
> seems to have hacked everybody off.
>
The 'Automatic Writing' sales patter appeared to show his team
predicting the balls in drawn order in the trial run.
I think it's significant that DB chose to wait for the post-draw
announcement of the balls in ascending order, probably in order to give
enough time for covert manipulation of the numbers on his prediction balls.
Didn't DB load his prediction balls into a plastic tube in front of the
panel, but we next saw 'them' on a rack with no tube. In a feature film
that would be considered a continuity error.
Evil Nigel
Paracelsus
|
| The 'Automatic Writing' sales patter appeared to show his team
| predicting the balls in drawn order in the trial run.
|
The guy who couldn't do automatic writing (lame!) and so was given the task
of scoring, was most likely a 'plant' inside on the trick. He was working
out the averages while the draw was taking place (how's that for 'leakage of
information'!), and his job was to give the group 3 or 4 hits, to make it
look like they were improving, as a buid-up to DB's final prediction.
| I think it's significant that DB chose to wait for the post-draw
| announcement of the balls in ascending order, probably in order to give
| enough time for covert manipulation of the numbers on his prediction
balls.
|
| Didn't DB load his prediction balls into a plastic tube in front of the
| panel, but we next saw 'them' on a rack with no tube. In a feature film
| that would be considered a continuity error.
|
I don't think he had balls inside the tube, just the 'predictions' written
down (but I could be wrong about that). Of course, he couldn't tell the
group what they were, because they were being conned as much as the public.
I hope he told them straightaway, and didn't leave them thinking they had
really done this.
Invisible Friend
Yep the predicition was written down and placed in a tube, not the
balls.
--
Invisible Friend
gARY
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think (and I never see the thing because I knew it was a con)...
1/ Ch 4 was a partner
2/ The draw although live has a dely in transmiting
3/ Ch 4 got out to air quicker
4/ hence draw known and sent out JUST before the BBC
What would have DONE MY HEAD - if he predicted the numbers 24hrs (or
so) beforehand!!
I rest my case.
nigel
>
> For the benefit of those living abroad, Derren Brown spent 55 minutes of
> his hour long prog (that includes ad breaks) building up the theory that
> he had a team of 24 (or was it 23?) people in a semi-trance writing down
> numbers using 'automatic writing' then taking the averages.
>
> Then in the last few minutes or so, he stated that he didn't manufacture
> 8 sets of replacement lottery balls weighing more than normal balls
> bearing the 6 required numbers (and he showed a set he 'didn't' have
> made), and he didn't get an insider to swap them for the correct balls
> just before the draw then swap them out again afterwards.
>
> In my opinion both methods were meant to serve as misdirection and the
> real method, probably some optical trickery, remains unrevealed.
>
> Evil Nigel
>
During Derren Brown's prog, he included an illustration of Walter
Penney's coin-flip game.
He got a volunteer to pick a sequence of three coin flips (I think he
chose HHH), then allocated another sequence to a second volunteer (THH).
A coin was flipped a number of times and a count was made of how often
each sequence occurred. The second volunteer had a group of people
trying to use willpower to influence the tosses in his favour.
The second volunteer won by a considerable margin, something like ten
occurrences to 2.
Derren Brown admitted the result was determined by maths rather than
willpower, and the explanation was on the Channel 4 site (it isn't).
I can understand why THH will appear in a large sequence more often than
HHH, but as I understand Penney's game, the rules enable the person
choosing a sequence second to be able to chose more more likely to occur
first, not necessarily more often overall. If the first volunteer had
chosen say HTH, I'm not convinced the second volunteer would have
necessarily won overall.
Penney's algorithm applies to any sequence, which also puzzles me.
The original volunteer 'chose' 'HHH'. The sequence more likely to occur
first is 'THH'. But why can't the game be played by a third player
choosing a sequence likely to occur before the second in 'TTH'. A fourth
player could then choose the sequence more likely to occur before that
with 'HTT'. A fifth player could then join in with 'HHT' and then a
sixth with 'THH'. The sixth player is likely to beat the fifth player
who is likely to beat the fourth player who is likely to beat the third
player who is likely to beat the second player who chose the same
sequence as the sixth player.
That's my half-braincell knackered for the day.
Evil Nigel
Paracelsus
"gARY" <ga...@justservices.com> wrote in message
news:a23129c9-f467-4c27...@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
I rest my case.
If you look closely, you can see the split screen:
nigel
Although the Walter Penney coin-flip game has no immediate relevance to
the lottery that I can see, it does establish an important principle.
In a pseudo-random environment, it is possible to 'get something for
nothing' based on sequences of results.
If you chuck all preconceptions out of the window, it's
counter-intuitive that someone with the draw history of a lottery
doesn't have an advantage over someone who doesn't.
While I don't think it at all likely that people will be able to use
historical data to predict the results of the next draw with 100%
confidence, I'm happy that maths confirms the possibility of my own
findings, that it is possible to outperform expectation in the long run.
Evil Nigel