(You may not be able to view the above link, if not try clicking on this link)
The trick: Derren picks on pensioner Anne and teaches her to play tournament poker. She subsequently finishes playing second against five other professional players. This is apparently due to the body language reading skills Derren has taught her.
It might seem extraordinary that any one could beat four other poker pros with cursory training. In fact, poker tournaments are mostly luck - professionals will win slightly more than they lose over time and this will be very profitable in the long run, but in an individual tournament it is mostly just down to chance. A top player might win one time in five as opposed to a break-even player winning one time in six, but a win rate beyond that is unsustainable. The trick here is really the simple psychological one that people radically overstate the element of skill in a game of skill and chance.
So, it isn't really that unlikely that Anne would come second, or for that matter, first. Even if she had come third Brown can probably spin this as being down to "bad luck" as he does with the final hand which eliminates Anne.
To be fair Anne appears to have memorized sound play and does deal with an intimidating situation very competently. Brown must have been delighted to have such an effective student.
Thursday, 1 September 2011
Monday, 15 August 2011
Derren Brown - Roulette Wheel
How is this trick done? To someone less schooled in magic, it might seem like there is no "trick" at all, after all Brown fails to win any money. Let's first deal with this misconception:
Rest assured that what Brown is doing here was designed to fail from the start? Why would a mentalist performer want to deliberately fail at something? In fact it is relatively common for magicians to throw an apparent failure into their act as a subtle means of throwing people off, provided you do it right.
The general public is aware from their experience of magic that it very rarely goes truly wrong. Ladies do not get sawed in half. People who are just extraordinarily skilled at something by contrast do often fail to pull it off. Tiger Woods is a great golfer but the day before I wrote this he drove a ball into a lake like a rank amateur in the US Open. We know this on an instictive level.
Now let's look at what Brown is claiming to do here: predict the final resting place of the roulette ball. Interestingly, some people credibly claim to be able to do this. But, in truth, even individuals like Laurance Scott, the man most associated with the science of roulette prediction, who claim (plausibly) to have made money at roulette, do not claim to be able to predict the exact number which will come up, or even close to it. If you could predict exactly where the ball would land, you would have a 3500% return on investment. Even if you could do it, say, 1 time in 10, instead of the normal random 1 in 35, you would still be getting 250% return on average. The casino would be bankrupted in hours.
Predictors like Scott merely claim that they know that certain numbers will come up with slightly higher frequency than other numbers, by only a few % more than normal, a very different thing from the type of almost-perfect prediction Brown hints at.Over a very long series of trials (say, a few thousand spins at least) they might win more than they lose, but they can lose for hours, days, weeks or even months.
I have occassionally experimented with roulette prediction, and, if possible at all, it is a very difficult thing to do. Many spins are completely random due to the effects of scatter and bounce, and the randomizing effects of obstacles scattered around the wheel. In no sense could you try and impress your friends with your skills, let alone the nation on a TV programme, because in the vast majority of cases your guess as to the pocket the ball would land in wouldn't get anywhere near the right number.
This leaves the rather more complex question of what Brown is doing in the programme. It could simply be that he wandered into a random casino and threw down five grand on a random number. But he is only one number out on his prediction, which suggests some kind of manipulation. My "guess" and it truly is a guess, is that the whole casino was a set-up, and the event was filmed with multiple spins till the "right" (or wrong depending on your perspective)number came up. Brown claims not to use stooges and I'm fairly certain he keeps to that...most of the time. I'm sure he rationalized it to himself that he wasn't breaking his own rules as the trick was meant to be a failure.
An alternative possibility is that the casino was genuine and Brown simply bet until he got a number sufficiently close to the desired one for his purposes. The fact that Brown talks to the guy whose money he is supposedly betting with is suspicous: there is no interaction between them but Brown clearly wants to give the impression of a conversation. This suggests manipulation or editing of the audio which may suggest Brown was not betting at the suggested stakes, but, presumably, much lower.
Rest assured that what Brown is doing here was designed to fail from the start? Why would a mentalist performer want to deliberately fail at something? In fact it is relatively common for magicians to throw an apparent failure into their act as a subtle means of throwing people off, provided you do it right.
The general public is aware from their experience of magic that it very rarely goes truly wrong. Ladies do not get sawed in half. People who are just extraordinarily skilled at something by contrast do often fail to pull it off. Tiger Woods is a great golfer but the day before I wrote this he drove a ball into a lake like a rank amateur in the US Open. We know this on an instictive level.
Now let's look at what Brown is claiming to do here: predict the final resting place of the roulette ball. Interestingly, some people credibly claim to be able to do this. But, in truth, even individuals like Laurance Scott, the man most associated with the science of roulette prediction, who claim (plausibly) to have made money at roulette, do not claim to be able to predict the exact number which will come up, or even close to it. If you could predict exactly where the ball would land, you would have a 3500% return on investment. Even if you could do it, say, 1 time in 10, instead of the normal random 1 in 35, you would still be getting 250% return on average. The casino would be bankrupted in hours.
Predictors like Scott merely claim that they know that certain numbers will come up with slightly higher frequency than other numbers, by only a few % more than normal, a very different thing from the type of almost-perfect prediction Brown hints at.Over a very long series of trials (say, a few thousand spins at least) they might win more than they lose, but they can lose for hours, days, weeks or even months.
I have occassionally experimented with roulette prediction, and, if possible at all, it is a very difficult thing to do. Many spins are completely random due to the effects of scatter and bounce, and the randomizing effects of obstacles scattered around the wheel. In no sense could you try and impress your friends with your skills, let alone the nation on a TV programme, because in the vast majority of cases your guess as to the pocket the ball would land in wouldn't get anywhere near the right number.
This leaves the rather more complex question of what Brown is doing in the programme. It could simply be that he wandered into a random casino and threw down five grand on a random number. But he is only one number out on his prediction, which suggests some kind of manipulation. My "guess" and it truly is a guess, is that the whole casino was a set-up, and the event was filmed with multiple spins till the "right" (or wrong depending on your perspective)number came up. Brown claims not to use stooges and I'm fairly certain he keeps to that...most of the time. I'm sure he rationalized it to himself that he wasn't breaking his own rules as the trick was meant to be a failure.
An alternative possibility is that the casino was genuine and Brown simply bet until he got a number sufficiently close to the desired one for his purposes. The fact that Brown talks to the guy whose money he is supposedly betting with is suspicous: there is no interaction between them but Brown clearly wants to give the impression of a conversation. This suggests manipulation or editing of the audio which may suggest Brown was not betting at the suggested stakes, but, presumably, much lower.
Embedded Commands
One of the more interesting tricks mentalist Derren Brown supposedly uses is known as the "embedded command". One of Derren Brown's more famous sequences involves him convincing actor Simon Pegg that he really, really wanted a BMX bike for his birthday.
You may not be able to view the above video due to Youtube geographical restrictions in which case a cursory explanation of what occured may happen. Brown asks Pegg to write down what he'd really like for his birthday. Brown gives him a BMX bike. Pegg is delighted. Brown asks Pegg to read out what he'd written down and it is not a BMX bike.
Brown subsequently explains that he has loaded his preliminary conversation with Pegg with "embedded commands", sentences within sentences that encourage Pegg to think about BMX bikes and how great they are.
If you can't watch the video and just read my text above you probably think the trick is rubbish. Whereas if you can see the video you are probably marvelling at Brown's prowess as a mentalist. This is not accidental.
The truth is that this trick has almost nothing to do with embedded commands. The trick depends on the fact that the actor (it is not accidental Brown very often uses celebrities) knows he is expected to play along with Brown who is subtly indicating what Pegg should do. Pegg is under and enormous amount of pressure to play along: if he doesn't then he is good to have a really awkward and embarassing few moments with Brown where Brown acknowledes it isn't working and the footage is junked. Playing along is what Pegg does, he's an actor.
This is, in fact, how a great many of Brown's tricks are accomplished, and is often a component of tricks where other techniques are used.
Does this mean embedded commands are nonsense? A concept Brown simply made up? Interestingly, no. Used in the right way they can be very effective. But, they have limited utility for a performer because they are percentage moves that don't always work. We'll examine the concept in more detail in subsequent posts.
You may not be able to view the above video due to Youtube geographical restrictions in which case a cursory explanation of what occured may happen. Brown asks Pegg to write down what he'd really like for his birthday. Brown gives him a BMX bike. Pegg is delighted. Brown asks Pegg to read out what he'd written down and it is not a BMX bike.
Brown subsequently explains that he has loaded his preliminary conversation with Pegg with "embedded commands", sentences within sentences that encourage Pegg to think about BMX bikes and how great they are.
If you can't watch the video and just read my text above you probably think the trick is rubbish. Whereas if you can see the video you are probably marvelling at Brown's prowess as a mentalist. This is not accidental.
The truth is that this trick has almost nothing to do with embedded commands. The trick depends on the fact that the actor (it is not accidental Brown very often uses celebrities) knows he is expected to play along with Brown who is subtly indicating what Pegg should do. Pegg is under and enormous amount of pressure to play along: if he doesn't then he is good to have a really awkward and embarassing few moments with Brown where Brown acknowledes it isn't working and the footage is junked. Playing along is what Pegg does, he's an actor.
This is, in fact, how a great many of Brown's tricks are accomplished, and is often a component of tricks where other techniques are used.
Does this mean embedded commands are nonsense? A concept Brown simply made up? Interestingly, no. Used in the right way they can be very effective. But, they have limited utility for a performer because they are percentage moves that don't always work. We'll examine the concept in more detail in subsequent posts.
Sunday, 14 August 2011
Derren Brown - The Truth
What is Derren Brown doing? Does he really have psychic powers (It is an unwritten law of watching Derren Brown with more than two other people that someone will inevitably say "But what if he really IS psychic? As if they were the first person to ever say it.)
Interestingly, there is no real definitive source on what Brown actually does in his TV shows and entertainment.
Since Derren has been around ten years or so, there is now so much material by him that explaining every trick he has ever used would be very time-consuming. I'll explain the specifics of many of them in the coming months, but for the moment let's look at the general claim Brown makes at the start of his programmes.
For an individual who thrives on deception, when it comes down to it he is basically telling the truth when he says:
"I mix magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship"
However, this sentence gives away more about his methods than is apparent. Misdirection and showmanship, while they can be applied to other fields, are basically terms used almost exclusively by magicians. Additionally, suggestion is really just a part of psychology.
Bizarrely, Derren Brown's commercially successful form of headfuckery, even when is explaining it, is messing with your mind. He could just say "I use magic and psychology" but where's the showmanship in that?
So, when stripped down to basics we know that Brown is basically use only methods. Brown claims to be "honest even when he's lieing" and tell you when he's tricking you. The rather more prosaic truth is that Derren Brown explains what he's doing when the trick is kind of cool, and doesn't tell you when the trick is rather obvious and boring. Which is most of the time.
Brown seems to have an acute awareness of the fact that the public is deeply, deeply uninterested in the old school magical techniques of bowtie-wearing pigeon producing performers. For this reason he generally never explains any trick which involves conventional sleight-of-hand magic. He just knows that will disappoint us.
Additionally, and confusingly, there is a third element to what Brown does which doesn't mention at all in his introduction, that of statistical trickery, manipulating his audience through selective editing of what he actually shows them. Since this often amounts to little more than editing out his failures and showing his successes, it is hardly surprising he isn't that upfront about this.
Imagine I say "I'm the greatest bowler in the world". You then see me on film hitting ten pins over twenty times in a row in a bowling alley. Then you find that I edited out the three hundred times the ball went down the side alley. Impressed much? No.
So, a more accurate if less interesting introduction to Brown's shows would be "I mix magic and psychology, mostly magic, while selectively editing out my failures". That would be more honest, and also partly explains why Derren Brown has got rich from selling himself and I haven't....
Interestingly, there is no real definitive source on what Brown actually does in his TV shows and entertainment.
Since Derren has been around ten years or so, there is now so much material by him that explaining every trick he has ever used would be very time-consuming. I'll explain the specifics of many of them in the coming months, but for the moment let's look at the general claim Brown makes at the start of his programmes.
For an individual who thrives on deception, when it comes down to it he is basically telling the truth when he says:
"I mix magic, suggestion, psychology, misdirection and showmanship"
However, this sentence gives away more about his methods than is apparent. Misdirection and showmanship, while they can be applied to other fields, are basically terms used almost exclusively by magicians. Additionally, suggestion is really just a part of psychology.
Bizarrely, Derren Brown's commercially successful form of headfuckery, even when is explaining it, is messing with your mind. He could just say "I use magic and psychology" but where's the showmanship in that?
So, when stripped down to basics we know that Brown is basically use only methods. Brown claims to be "honest even when he's lieing" and tell you when he's tricking you. The rather more prosaic truth is that Derren Brown explains what he's doing when the trick is kind of cool, and doesn't tell you when the trick is rather obvious and boring. Which is most of the time.
Brown seems to have an acute awareness of the fact that the public is deeply, deeply uninterested in the old school magical techniques of bowtie-wearing pigeon producing performers. For this reason he generally never explains any trick which involves conventional sleight-of-hand magic. He just knows that will disappoint us.
Additionally, and confusingly, there is a third element to what Brown does which doesn't mention at all in his introduction, that of statistical trickery, manipulating his audience through selective editing of what he actually shows them. Since this often amounts to little more than editing out his failures and showing his successes, it is hardly surprising he isn't that upfront about this.
Imagine I say "I'm the greatest bowler in the world". You then see me on film hitting ten pins over twenty times in a row in a bowling alley. Then you find that I edited out the three hundred times the ball went down the side alley. Impressed much? No.
So, a more accurate if less interesting introduction to Brown's shows would be "I mix magic and psychology, mostly magic, while selectively editing out my failures". That would be more honest, and also partly explains why Derren Brown has got rich from selling himself and I haven't....
What is mentalism?
Mentalism is the applied science of the mind to everyday situations, an explosive exciting field full of genuine possibilites. Mentalism is more than just a branch of psychology, it is a concept that trascends disciplines.
This blog will do more than just cover the famous examples of mentalism in the entertainment world. We will examine diverse fields such as experimental psychology, the world of professional seducers, magic and misdirection, poker, economics, any field where the behaviour of the mind is key.
This blog will do more than just cover the famous examples of mentalism in the entertainment world. We will examine diverse fields such as experimental psychology, the world of professional seducers, magic and misdirection, poker, economics, any field where the behaviour of the mind is key.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)