- This topic has 20 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
I think what he may be trying to explain, which may have a read across into racing (in particular the betting on racing) , is that the information you don’t know is often more significant than what you do know.
As for the photo trick, are we to believe this was the only group of 4 industry folk he tried this on? Also, the fact these people chose names of the only people which matched their own initials made this a non-random choice.
Summarising, I have changed my view on the program. Although I still consider it a waste of time (to a lesser degree now) and reconstructed, the main issue I have is Channel 4 describing Derren as possessing a system for winning at the horses. If you read Derren’s own take on the program, he is pretty careful…
"I took a member of the public and I told her which horse would win in a certain race; when it did win she was intrigued and I did it again and again and she started to bet more and more money according to my system. She’s scraped together every last penny she could find and she is risking it all on one final race. Is it really possible to predict every time which horse will win? Welcome to The System."
He never claims to have ‘a system’ for winning at the horses. He appears to merely call his technique ‘The System’. This isn’t a system for winning at the horses, it’s a scam – which can give a member of the public definate winners at the horses – which he chooses to call ‘The System’.
i think…
Wallace asked how the trick with the photographs was done, and I merely explained that two fairly large parts of how the trick was portrayed can be readily ignored, simply because they don’t relate to how it was achieved.
It’s a technique used regularly by Brown to confuse the audience and mask exactly what is going on. My hope was that, with those two aspects not under consideration, Wallace might be able to start to piece it together…along with what was actually in the show.
So, my comments were in no way criticisms of the trick itself, simply statements to narrow down the possibilities as to how Brown puled it off (as per my previous remark about stripping away the unnecessary elements).
Try reading, and understanding, what’s actually written.
Did Paul Daniels cause as much debate when he fooled us with his Wizardry back in the 80s?
Yes he did.
"Is that or isn’t that a syrup he’s got on?"
etc.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.