- This topic has 95 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Good point Steve
If anything the show emphasised the point of the bookmaker always winning and compulsive betting on other people’s advice being a very stupid idea
Agreed with Steve. Great TV!!
The haunted face of that bloke who did a ton fifty on his "certainty" was a picture! I felt for him – until I remembered that kind of thing happens everyday to us lot.
It was simply a psychological experiment and, despite what you may think, it was aimed at the viewer and not those taking part (7776 people is far too large a control group for a test of that nature).
The idea was to make those watching believe that Brown was selecting winners without fault, with the objective of showing just how gullible the mind can be in such circumstances. That is why we only heard about the bets placed by one person, and why we eventually saw filming either side of the ten ‘successful’ coin tosses.
As with most of Derren Brown’s shows – and that’s all this was, the racecourse being his stage on this occasion – instilling belief revolved around misdirection and (hidden) suggestion. And given the numer of people who were, and still are, stating ‘it’s nonsense, what a con, surely it can’t be done’ I would say the test was a very successful one.
Hi gang
The System does pick the winner of every race! Mind you its alot of work for no profit….
byefrom
carlislePretty weak television imo as it was so blindlingly obvious what he was up to from the start.
Derren Brown is right, the "system" does work.
Probably no different to the scheme/scam employed by many a dubious racing "tipster"The small fields, the small fields.
Of course, we all knew there would be a sting in the horse’s tail (if you excuse the pun), and that anything which appears too good to be true always is.
No doubt the non racing aficianados and erstwhile psychic believers among the viewing public must have thought that Brown’s psychic interventions (
) must have contributed to Joe Lively’s victory bywilling other horses in the field to fall.
The final race at Sandown. Well, we all knew the result of that beforehand too and that disppointment would soon be etched on the unsuspecting particpant’s face. The alarm bells were probably ringing in her mind when Brown insisted on placing the four grand bet.
…and of course
We all knew (didn’t we ?
) that Derren Brown placed four grand on each of the runners in the final race – her prize secured for reaching the final, as it were.But why didn’t he tell her (or the viewers) that instead of insisting that he simply had a change of heart and backed Marodima instead of Moon Over Miami ?
Because then, it would have destroyed the illusion, wouldn’t it.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
For an awful television program it certainly has got a lot of people talking about it. Forums all accross the land are speaking about it, presenters, pundits are all talking about it, betting shops up and down the country are talking about it, people from all walks of life are talking about it.
Now thats not bad going for an awful television program.
I think the whole programme may be fake.
Apart from the thigs already stated here:
When the woman was in the betting shop having backed Naunton Brook, she seemed to be the only person in the shop. Was this true, reconstructed, or faked?
The throwing 10 heads in a row, Mr. Brown later claims this took 9 hours. But there were places where there could be cuts in the footage he may have done it by just throwing the first 10 heads to appear. With clever camera work and getting into the same position he finished in, after the previous head was thrown.
Out of the four racing people who picked the photographs, only one, the journalist might know about betting. The others would not have a clue. If the seeds were planted in their minds, and with same enitials as the participants. After the stooges stood in their positions he produced an envelope, he could have had 24 (or whatever) envelopes hidden away. After all this, it would not be the odds mentioned for a random selection, nowhere near. Presumably there were many groups of four racing people that did not pick the right photographs.
Can not believe everyone featured was so gullible and did not question anything. I suppose there might have been loads of people who did, but did not feature in the programme. Those that did feature probably knew if they questioned anything they would not get their moment on TV.
The woman featured looked familiar, was she an actress? Some of the reactions looked fake. May be she was told “we did not get that love, can you do it again?â€Value Is EverythingHi Al
Come on lads lighten up it was a superb bit entertainment it was never meant to make the systems page of the forum- mind you it’s a bit short of winners on thereI thought it was clever the way that many people (mainly on other forums) are disappointed because Derren promised a system ‘that would always win’ and it turned out to be a con: exactly mirroring the scenario he was exposing, when you receive a letter through the door which promises a system that will always win and it turns out to be a con.
Surely everyone who isn’t sucked in by those letters wasn’t sucked in by the program’s tagline either?
I thought it was a good program but mislabelled. Rather than coming under the ‘psychological experiment’ banner as most of his programs are, it was more like an entertaining Crimewatch exposé.
Though I wish he admitted that he picked every horse in that last race.
NWRA
Does it stand for the North Will Rise Again?
Not in 10,000 years mate.
Value Is EverythingI hate to be the bearer of bad news guys and shatter your dreams but-
Paul Daniels doesn’t really possess magic powers and Harry Potter isn’t really a wizard.
Gingertipster,
(In terms of the filming) I would have no hesitation in saying the programme was a fake. Did he really stand there for 9 hours trying to flip 10 consecutive heads? No way.
Was the woman an actress? I would say almost certainly yes. The Naunton Brook race was filmed by a professional camera crew, yet that was only the 3rd race, so by then, there would have been at least 500 people still in the pyramid going on that race. Was there a professional camera crew watching the other 500 people in case their horse won? No way.
In fact, I would have huge doubts as to whether the Joe Lively race was part of the filming. The shots of the woman at the racetrack could have been done at any subsequent meetings, once the production team had picked the races they wanted to cover. And let’s face it, the drama surrounding the Joe Lively race was top class, so it’s obvious they would pick that race as part of the programme – but did they pick that race beforehand and get lucky? I would say no. There are lots of 3, 4, 5 runner races and they could have picked any to film – is it a coincidence that they picked the one race of the season that had perhaps the most drama!
However, what I’ve said above is all just speculation, and in my opinion irrelevant. Like people have already said, the racing was just a stage.
Mike
Hi gang
Darren is a confidence trickster……. hed make a gud bookie!
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together already knows the winning system. The desire to carry out the plan is the difficult part.
byefrom
carlislePaul Daniels doesn’t really possess magic powers and Harry Potter isn’t really a wizard
Funny, reading some of the comments on this thread, I was thinking of people moaning about a magic show because “it’s obvious that it’s a trick, rather than real magic”.
The show last night wasn’t aimed at people who know this scam, so we’re not really the target audience … or the best people to judge it.
As a spectacle, I thought it made an interesting hour’s TV (though I’m sure most people didn’t feel much drama during the last race as it was obvious he wouldn’t let her lose the money).
Was it 100% true and filmed “as is”? Probably not, but so what? It was just a TV programme.
Steve
PS The whole thing about the coin toss, Get over it.
Whether he did it for 9 hours or it was cut to look like it was continuous, what’s the difference? The point behind it was valid either way.
Some of you guys get worked up about the most unimportant things.
i can not believe some of the reaction on here to the point that you’re either fishing for a counter reaction or a bunch of muppetts.
It doesn’t matter wether Derren Brown spent 9 hrs tossing a coin or not, though i’m inclined to think he did. What does matter is that he illustrated the chances of spinning 10 coins in a row and them landing heads is 1 in a 1000 which is easily achievable in 9hrs if you had the inclination. which you would have if you were getting paid to make a program about it.
He also illustrated that basically the easiest and quickest way to get six winners on the bounce is to involve 7776 people in the way that he did, betting in small fields and fooling the majority of those involved. That isn’t a system and is what he says at the end.
His point as with all his programs is not the ‘magic’ or ‘illusion’ involved but the human psychology used within them.
The sketch with the 4 horse racing personalities was just a bit of a smokescreen probably involving some form of suggestion, which he uses in so many of his programs.The fact the program could all have been staged, acted and edited is by the by, because as programmes go the budgeting of a true version wouldn’t have been expensive at all and would be just as easy to organise
All in all i enjoyed it, and thought what made it was the sheer coincidence that the 5th race with Joe lively turned out as it did, which for me took centre stage.
Probably no different to the scheme/scam employed by many a dubious racing "tipster"
) that Derren Brown placed four grand on each of the runners in the final race – her prize secured for reaching the final, as it were.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.