talkmagic.co.uk

Iain, perhaps he will suddenly change the explanation, but the whole program was an hour of mediocre presenting and mentalism.

He can't go back on that.

i didnt think it was that bad...

i missed the blaine thing though - shame..i wanted to see it, and i couldnt find it on 4oD earlier...here's hoping it appears on there soon...

i think a lot of people are bewildered and a little angry/cheated over this, but i dont quite understand why personally...

i thought the knife/mouse thing was nicely dramatic...or should i say...wait for it....

micely dramatic...ho ho ho...

Usually with Derren, he gives a false explanation, that we magicians laugh to ourselfs about and the great unwashed all lap up.

The difference this time...laymen haven't been buying it

Wise words again, Lenoir. I think you're exactly right.

I would have been annoyed if Joe Public was taken in by the Wisdom of the Crowd theory but I don't think anyone really was.

Another point from YouTube:
One of the numbers was 2. If he'd taken the average of the 24 numpties then they would all have had to put 1 or 3 for that number. Pretty unlikely, really.

well, not really...any number is just as valid as the next...just as likey as any other number...

1-3 would also be baby ages too...

i still say wait and see - all the conspirators may eat their words later, thats whats annoyed me about all this - why not just enjoy it all and see what happens at the very end?

No, Iain:

Without getting bogged down in the maths, because we're looking at *averages* not specific numbers, the group hitting 2 *is* very unlikely. I know that with specific numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 coming out of the machine is as likely as anything else but here's my point:

For the group to get an average of say, 23, there are *lots* of combinations the group could have come up with that would have averaged at 23 but to average at 2 they would all have to put 1s and 3s (and a pretty even share of each).

Other explanation: Say you did it with just 2 people, to get an average of say 12, the two people could have put 1/23, 2/22, 3/21, 4/20, 5/21 etc. Basically anything that adds up to 24 (leading to an average of 12). But to get an average of 2 they would *have* to have chosen 1/3.

Hence getting two as an average from 24 people is *not* as likely as the next number.

Ta-daa! And, yes, I did get bogged down in maths!!

I love how Derren kept referring to the coin toss challenge as being rooted in 'deep maths'

Yes, Josh, I thought it would be a great one to try on friends until I realised that surely eventually they would work out that they would only ever win a round if H H H came out straight away. If H H H ever followed a T then you would win. I suppose by the guy picking H H H it made it more obvious maybe.

I did also notice that a lot of rounds ended/started something like:

H T H T H H (end of round)
H T H...

so the guy did get three in a row lots of times obviously (1 in 2 chance after a round he lost on) but they wouldn't count as they went across two rounds.

Deep maths indeed. Interesting stuff though.

TimEden wrote:No, Iain:

Without getting bogged down in the maths, because we're looking at *averages* not specific numbers, the group hitting 2 *is* very unlikely. I know that with specific numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 coming out of the machine is as likely as anything else but here's my point:

For the group to get an average of say, 23, there are *lots* of combinations the group could have come up with that would have averaged at 23 but to average at 2 they would all have to put 1s and 3s (and a pretty even share of each).

Other explanation: Say you did it with just 2 people, to get an average of say 12, the two people could have put 1/23, 2/22, 3/21, 4/20, 5/21 etc. Basically anything that adds up to 24 (leading to an average of 12). But to get an average of 2 they would *have* to have chosen 1/3.

Hence getting two as an average from 24 people is *not* as likely as the next number.

Ta-daa! And, yes, I did get bogged down in maths!!

So, did we see all 6 being added up?

Could he not done something as simple as the horowitz add a number pad?

No the final numbers weren't shown to anyone until the reveal on the night. Derren added them up himself and didn't even show the 24 helpers. Bluff or counter bluff? My hed hurtzzz.

I'm with bluff. Yes he added them up himself and did not show the results to the group even though he had on all of their other attempts, but of course he couldn't, could he?

TimEden wrote:One of the numbers was 2. If he'd taken the average of the 24 numpties then they would all have had to put 1 or 3 for that number. Pretty unlikely, really.

He made a point of saying in the second round of guessing, that people were allowed to write any numbers that came to them, including numbers well outside the lottery range (note that they got 63 as one guess in that round) and even negative numbers. So that nicely covers the whole spectrum from 1 to 49.

Is anybody else a bit suspicious of the number-guessing group's steady progress in getting a little more correct each time?

Mandrake wrote:No the final numbers weren't shown to anyone until the reveal on the night. Derren added them up himself and didn't even show the 24 helpers. Bluff or counter bluff? My hed hurtzzz.

Totally understandable and given good motivation.

surely there's just as much chance as people all writing 1s and 3s as any other number though? and doing it via automatic writing, those are probably the easiest numbers to draw...

IAIN wrote:surely there's just as much chance as people all writing 1s and 3s as any other number though? and doing it via automatic writing, those are probably the easiest numbers to draw...

It does not matter what they write. The fact they do not know and have a free choice sells the idea to them. They have been conditioned several times and Derren just does this last one on the pretext that noone else should put the numbers on.

John McDonald wrote:

IAIN wrote:surely there's just as much chance as people all writing 1s and 3s as any other number though? and doing it via automatic writing, those are probably the easiest numbers to draw...

It does not matter what they write. The fact they do not know and have a free choice sells the idea to them. They have been conditioned several times and Derren just does this last one on the pretext that noone else should put the numbers on.

I'm not talking about the "real" method - I'm just saying that the chances of any person writing 1 or 3 down is just as likely to happen as any other number, and, via automatic writing - i.e. people with eyes shut and letting the pencil do the writing, 1 and 3 are in fact, very liable to be drawn..as they very comfortable shapes for a hand to make...