Derren Brown Cheating Too! :(

[RicardoRix]

use to love Derren Brown. I think a lot of his tricks are genuine great mind-game feats, but his not adverse to play low and dirty.

When playing 13 simultaneous chess grandmasters \ masters, he reflected the play of one player to one of the other players. He does explain this at the end. So he should win and lose half of the games and even without even knowing how to play chess properly just memorisation - very clever, but what he doesn't tell you is how he won the 13th game...

For the predicting the lottery numbers trick - this was a truly unimaginative and crap camera trick. Where the 6 balls on a stand were swapped when you weren't looking. In fact it was a camera pointing a separate 'staged' stand just like the original. This was done 'live' and youtube proof can show you just how the one of the balls magically pops up at the exact moment the camera 'switch' occurs. The original live 6 balls weren't quite placed perfectly.

Cheap camera tricks aside, some of his other tricks are very impressive, lord knows how he does some of them. One of them was getting another person to memorise enough facts to win an international pub quiz by himself. And the hypnotise sleep after about 10 seconds on a public phone is pretty good too.

 

[Kirjava]

Not since it was posted some months ago XD .

Worth doing if you're wanting to use the phrase "recent developments".

 

[pipkiksass]

what he doesn't tell you is how he won the 13th game...

He does actually - he picked the statistically weakest player, and played against him himself.

All opinions aside, I'd like to believe that latest cubing shenanigan is in some way a clever trick. Having a pre-scrambled cube in the audience, and another identically scrambled cube about his person, just seems a bit obvious and cheap.

As for 'infinite' amount of spare time - I pretty much stand by that. Clearly he's not immortal, and has to sleep, but anyone who has enough time to travel to India for 3 months to learn how to put a nail between your nostril and the top of your palate has a LOT of spare time!!!

 

[RicardoRix]

He does actually - he picked the statistically weakest player, and played against him himself.

Yeah, he's not going to win that game in the conventional normal sense. You could play even the weakest chess master a 10,000 times and you're still not gonna win a single game.

 

[pipkiksass]

Yeah, he's not going to win that game in the conventional normal sense. You could play even the weakest chess master a 10,000 times and you're still not gonna win a single game.

Disagree, I once drew a game with a master, and I only played him about 6 times. And I'm at best average at chess. I'd have no chance against a grand master.

The players he played weren't all masters even, only 4 I believe. The guy he beat barely had a 2000 ranking, which makes him an 'expert', not a master/GM/etc.. A 2000 ranking is beatable, it's a very good competition standard, but that guy would never win a single game against a GM.

Not saying he beat him legitimately, just that beating him legitimately would be possible, with a little coaching.

 

[qqwref]

Knowing how good his memory is (he can memorise the order of four decks of cards as quickly as you our I could count them),

Can he, though, or is it a trick? Remember that he's a magician and thus deception is what he does for a living - you can only trust what you see, and sometimes (in some TV magic shows) not even that. AFAIK he hasn't competed in the World Memory Championships (that is, under controlled circumstances). I just checked and the records are something like one deck in 21 seconds and 7 decks in 10 minutes, so I'd be very skeptical of the kind of results Derren claims.

As for 'infinite' amount of spare time - I pretty much stand by that. Clearly he's not immortal, and has to sleep, but anyone who has enough time to travel to India for 3 months to learn how to put a nail between your nostril and the top of your palate has a LOT of spare time!!!

Or he just has a career that can be put on hold without getting him fired, and enough money to live on while he does

 

[RicardoRix]

yeah, same for the BLD rubiks cube, "with a little coaching".

 

[~Adam~]

The player he beat legit in the chess game was just the organiser of a chess club. No other information was given about him. Don't know where you are getting all this extra information.

Pik, you may want to look up the definition of infinite.

Derren is supposed to be good at memorising cards.
He sat down at a blackjack table when he was just starting out and a friend of mine was dealing.
Apparently he sat down at the table after memorising the 4 1/2 ish decks that came out of the shoe, then got quite upset when my friend started shuffling like he was meant to.

It seems that Derren had learnt how blackjack works but didn't know casino procedure.

 

[pipkiksass]

The player he beat legit in the chess game was just the organiser of a chess club. No other information was given about him. Don't know where you are getting all this extra information.

Pik, you may want to look up the definition of infinite.

Derren is supposed to be good at memorising cards.
He sat down at a blackjack table when he was just starting out and a friend of mine was dealing.
Apparently he sat down at the table after memorising the 4 1/2 ish decks that came out of the shoe, then got quite upset when my friend started shuffling like he was meant to.

It seems that Derren had learnt how blackjack works but didn't know casino procedure.

The 9th player was president of the King's College London chess club, there was an article on the Chess England website about it at the time. A quick google gives his rating as c.2000 at the time of the trick.

I know what infinite means, I'm not a moron. I more than clarified this in my last post, if you've still confused I can go into more detail if required?

I didn't think blackjack decks were shuffled - isn't that why counting systems work?

 

[~Adam~]

Ah, fair enough. I didn't consider anyone had done the background research off their own back.

As for 'infinite' amount of spare time - I pretty much stand by that.

I don't think infinite is a sensible word to use for something that can't possibly be infinite.

Most blackjack tables in the UK use automatic shufflers which make card counting impossible.
In the casino I used to work in the BJ tables had 6 decks of cards with a cutting card separating out the last 1/4 of the cards to make counting cards potentially less profitable.

Counting cards is actually quite easy, it just doesn't work very well and isn't easy to disguise.
You are essentially waiting until there is a large percentage of high cards left in the shoe (card storage box) so you are more likely to win. Then bet big for the last few hands before the cards are shuffled.
The only way it can really work is for a counter to bet the minimum for hours until the perfect shoe comes along, then calls over the high stakes player subtly. But the odds are very rarely in your favour for very long.

 

[pipkiksass]

Ah, fair enough. I didn't consider anyone had done the background research off their own back.

In the age of google, there's no excuse for making unsubstantiated claims!

I don't think infinite is a sensible word to use for something that can't possibly be infinite.

It's just casual hyperbole, and I'll stand by it to the death!

The only way it can really work is for a counter to bet the minimum for hours until the perfect shoe comes along, then calls over the high stakes player subtly. But the odds are very rarely in your favour for very long.

Or multiple counters on multiple tables. Are those rules just in place in the UK?

 

[~Adam~]

In the age of google, there's no excuse for making unsubstantiated claims!

The player he beat legit in the chess game was just the organiser of a chess club. No other information was given about him.

What unsubstantiated claim are you referring to?


Multiple counters with a single high roller would be fairly easy to spot.
'This guy is betting the house max for the last 3 hands of a shoe, winning then just standing around waiting'

Automatic shufflers mean that there's no down time resulting in greater profits. They are fairly standard across the globe by now.

Leaving a 1/4 to 1/3 of cards at the back of a shoe could be cut down a bit but you NEED to leave at least 1 deck at the back of a shoe or you could run out of cards mid hand.
When our high rollers were playing we were asked to leave 1/2 the cards behind the cutting card but mainly because our managers didn't understand basic statistics.
Every shoe dealt table needs the cards to be shuffled.

 

[pipkiksass]

The player he beat legit in the chess game was just the organiser of a chess club. No other information was given about him. Don't know where you are getting all this extra information.

What unsubstantiated claim are you referring to?

No need to get defensive, I was just stating that my own claim was substantiated re: the above.

I'm genuinely interested in the rules on blackjack dealing though, thanks for the info. I always thought it was as simple as 4 decks into shoe; play cards until they run out; shuffle & repeat. Now I'm starting to wonder if it EVER worked like that?!

 

[Ollie]

Not sure if true, but:

I saw one of his live shows not too long ago and he did 3x3 match the scramble BLD there with like 5 seconds of "memo" and 20 seconds of solving. after the show finished, I asked him how long it takes him to solve a cube sighted and he said about 1 minute using the beginners method. L.O.L. !

 

[Stefan]

Do you have an example for that?

Sure. Check out his vids on youtube. Somewhere in-between half and 3/4 of all of his vids he reveals the trick at the end.

So your answer is "no". You don't have an example.

 

[qqwref]

I didn't think blackjack decks were shuffled - isn't that why counting systems work?

Nope, you've got the wrong idea of how counting works. Just to add to what cube-o-holic has been saying - essentially they have some number of decks (often 4, 6, or 8) that they shuffle together and then deal from without shuffling until they run out of cards. Counting relies on the principle that some cards are better for the player and others are better for the dealer (specifically, high cards are good for the player). So you keep track of a number that tells you how good your chances are, and you start that number from 0 when the decks are shuffled. Then, as you see cards dealt out, you mentally adjust that number in a specific way based on the cards you see. Partway through the game, depending on whether the number is high or low, you can tell that the deck is statistically either good or bad for you. Having more decks doesn't really make counting cards much harder, but it does mean you have to pay attention for longer before everything is shuffled again (and reset to zero). But yeah, they could easily just shuffle after every hand.

The gambling scheme cube-o-holic mentions (having a bunch of counters and a high-stakes player) is indeed pretty easy to detect, at least over time. That's not necessarily the only possible scheme though. I could imagine a player hanging out at a table and just betting a bit more when the cards are good and a bit less when they are bad, which could be hard to detect (you'd have to count cards yourself to know if it's based on that or just a result of how the player feels at the time) and may be enough to give him an edge over the house or at least the other players.

 

[~Adam~]

No need to get defensive, I was just stating that my own claim was substantiated re: the above.

I wasn't trying to be defensive, was just curious if there was a misunderstanding.

QQs info is fairly good, I'll just add a little though.
To my knowledge Blackjack isn't played against other players however there are many side bets these days so it's entirely possible.

4 deck shoes are rare because the house edge (percentage the house wins on average) is lower. Also counting cards wouldn't give you very many hands to play when the 'count' is good.

8 deck shoes are good for casinos because the house edge is increased from the fairly typical 6 decks.
It is also good for card counters because you have potentially more time with a high count.

You can count cards and make the house edge negative for yourself but it is extremely obvious and dealers are meant to report it as soon as it occurs.
In order to maximise your returns you need to bet the minimum for the vast majority of the time and then increase your bets as the count gets good but this is not typical gambler behaviour.

Since you are cheating by counting and will be barred from almost every casino on the planet if caught it's a very risky way of making money in this age of communication.

 

[Ollie]

Since you are cheating by counting and will be barred from almost every casino on the planet if caught it's a very risky way of making money in this age of communication.

Just an interesting side note - you're not actually cheating by counting, you're just playing the game really well! Casinos just don't like you counting because they lose, as if they don't have enough of an advantage

 

[Dene]

Worth doing if you're wanting to use the phrase "recent developments".

Meh, it was obvious I was referring to what had been posted to bump the thread. If people didn't pick up on that that's their loss.

 

[~Adam~]

Apparently it's not cheating, however casinos can stop you from gambling at will and they do share information. Effectively if you are a winning blackjack player because of card counting your skill is useless since you won't be allowed to use it anywhere.