Derren Brown - The Events

[Gavin Chipper]

Kieran. If the mouse thing was as you suggest, HE COULD (AND THEREFORE SURELY WOULD) SHOW US AT HOME THE FUCKING ANSWER FIRST. Not half-heartedly wave a card with a picture of a mouse on it after she's picked it. As usual, we only see his prediction - his 100% accurate guess - AFTER the fucking event. Why do you suppose this might be? And seriously, you think fake gun "is complicating it" compared to shooting a fucking blank in your head?

A couple of reasons. Firstly, it's not as impressive.

I think it would have been more impressive and more fun for the audience. Especially when you consider that this was just supposed to be enjoyable filler rather than some great climax.

[Kieran Child]

It really wouldn't be. Given that the audience often expects the magician to be right, which has more oomf:
Being told what will happen, then watching for 5 minutes as exactly what you expected to happen happens or
Watching something happen for 5 minutes, then finding out that this was predicted beforehand.

If you genuinely argue for the former, then you're really just playing devil's advocate. There is no proof that the latter is better, but it just plain is.
If Someone tells you that the score for a football match was 2-1 to a certain team, you wouldn't watch a recording of the entire 90 minutes.

[Gavin Chipper]

It really wouldn't be. Given that the audience often expects the magician to be right, which has more oomf:
Being told what will happen, then watching for 5 minutes as exactly what you expected to happen happens or
Watching something happen for 5 minutes, then finding out that this was predicted beforehand.

If you genuinely argue for the former, then you're really just playing devil's advocate. There is no proof that the latter is better, but it just plain is.
If Someone tells you that the score for a football match was 2-1 to a certain team, you wouldn't watch a recording of the entire 90 minutes.

It's not just about it being more impressive. I think the idea of everyone (including the audience in the room) knowing except for her and waiting for to choose would be quite entertaining.

And there are many tricks where a magician reveals his prediction afterwards. This would have more novelty value.

If someone told me a football match would end 2-1 before it had actually happened I might watch anyway. I could put a bet on too. And remember, five minutes is very different to 90. For a start, I've written one out with letters and the other with numbers.

In this case, I think it would have been more entertaining to know in advance. It doesn't extend to all cases though. And in terms of being more impressive then surely less room for manipulating the results = harder = more impressive.

[Jon Corby]

In this case, I think it would have been more entertaining to know in advance. It doesn't extend to all cases though. And in terms of being more impressive then surely less room for manipulating the results = harder = more impressive.

I agree. And I'm not just playing devil's advocate. As it stands for me, I see four covered boxes. I see her choose one, then I see a pause where she's told to shut her eyes, then I see the box being revealed a few seconds later to the audience. And I'm thinking "I wonder what's going on there. Why can't she just be blindfolded, and we can see all the boxes? Why does she have to announce it a few seconds before he takes the cover off. Why can't she leave the cover on and just stick her hand in whatever one she feels like? Does he need to know a few seconds beforehand so that his special table can slide the right contents in under the cover? Those boxes look awfully suspicious, they're completely flat on that table they almost look part of it really, they don't look like individual boxes placed on an ordinary table."

I'm not a magician (like you) but I'd have thought the more transparent the trick, the more impressive it is, so you'd surely make it as transparent as you can? If there's genuinely no need to cover boxes, and make her announce which one she's going for, and leave a pause before revealing the contents, don't fucking do it. If you can show everyone else the contents of all the boxes, and reveal your full predictions beforehand, this to me is the way to go.

[Michael Wallace]

I also think the reveal the prediction first option would be more entertaining. But apparently I'm wrong, so sucks to be me.

[Sue Sanders]

I also think the reveal the prediction first option would be more entertaining. But apparently I'm wrong, so sucks to be me.

If the whereabouts of the mouse was revealed to you at the beginning, wouldn't you justtry to eat it?

[Michael Wallace]

I also think the reveal the prediction first option would be more entertaining. But apparently I'm wrong, so sucks to be me.

If the whereabouts of the mouse was revealed to you at the beginning, wouldn't you justtry to eat it?

No way, mice are far too cute.

[Kieran Child]

The stuff about the boxes looking stuck to the table and her needing to anounce the box beforehand makes it less transparent how exactly? There was nothing in any of the boxes. Had the boxes been glued to the table, and there been a secret chute in the bottom of each of them with a man sitting underneath, then it couldn't have aided the effect in any way.
By creating pointless things to do (read out the box beforehand) and having doubt over unrelated items (whether the boxes were part of the table) you are weaving a mystery. Transparency in magic is just based on style. It doesn't make something better or worse. There have been a couple of magicians who have performed magic completely naked and with only 1 or 2 props. It takes some very skilled trickery to do that, but I bet you cannot name even one of them, because it just isn't as popular as magic that creates an atmosphere, tells a story, and leaves questions: Magic where someone in hyper-formal clothing covers two cards with a 'scarf of mystery' before swishing about them with a wand and sliding them over to show that they've changed places will always draw more crowds than the good old snap change.

On all the people saying a reveal before the event would be better, I've thought about this. I think it's because you see magic as a puzzle rather than entertainment. If the reveal comes before, then you can instantly rule out a lot of pathways, and so it's a more linear puzzle to solve. The average person wouldn't want this, because they will see a magic trick, instantly accept that they don't know how it was done, and be amused. When this is the case, a trick which has a clear build up and climax (as leaving the reveal until the end provides) is superior.

[Jon Corby]

By creating pointless things to do (read out the box beforehand) and having doubt over unrelated items (whether the boxes were part of the table) you are weaving a mystery. Transparency in magic is just based on style. It doesn't make something better or worse.

Of course it does. You don't create mystery by having suspicious things in tricks that don't need to be there, all you do is completely lessen the impact of the trick. If I can saw a woman in half either on a wieldy trunk that's clearly large enough to fit the woman, or a slender hospital trolley that it doesn't appear she can hide under, which is gonna make the better trick? You're talking utter shite now. If I can perform something without pulling a fucking great curtain around it, I'm not gonna pull a fucking great curtain around it.

[Charlie Reams]

I've found a video of someone performing it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHqmg1OO0x0
In my set up, the performer was standing by 5 and the victim was standing by 1. In this instance, they're the other way around, so she ends up picking a 2, but what I was labelling a 4.

Discworld Jamboree

That was appalling

"I'm going to try and zone in on your watch......." *picks up the first cup* "........so that's the first of the empty cups eliminated" FFS

He numbered them 1-5, but now you're saying number 4 has nothing to do with it, they actually pick the furthest-but-one cup from where they're standing?

He does say he's going to eliminate the empty cups before he starts picking them up. The person saying he got it wrong is some kid, and everyone knows kids are stupid.

[Kieran Child]

By creating pointless things to do (read out the box beforehand) and having doubt over unrelated items (whether the boxes were part of the table) you are weaving a mystery. Transparency in magic is just based on style. It doesn't make something better or worse.

Of course it does. You don't create mystery by having suspicious things in tricks that don't need to be there, all you do is completely lessen the impact of the trick. If I can saw a woman in half either on a wieldy trunk that's clearly large enough to fit the woman, or a slender hospital trolley that it doesn't appear she can hide under, which is gonna make the better trick? You're talking utter shite now. If I can perform something without pulling a fucking great curtain around it, I'm not gonna pull a fucking great curtain around it.

There are methods of sawing a woman in half on something very thin and unable for her to hide around. In fact, Paul Zennon performed a version with a coke can that used a very similar mechanism on countdown.
So why hasn't this method overtaken the good old coffin on a table set up? Why do magicians still shove saws into a box that's clearly wide enough for the person inside to be able to curl around? Because transparency is nowhere near the most important thing. If you personally like watching more transparent magic (I do too) then do watch some Lennart Green. No story, no atmousphere, just very skilled sleight of hand that can be worked out if you watch it again and again. How wonderful.

[Sue Sanders]

No story, no atmousphere, just very skilled sleight of hand that can be worked out if you watch it again and again. How wonderful.

Michael won't like that...no cute element!

[Kieran Child]

good point. I wonder why I, and others, falsely add that U in.

[Jon Corby]

good point. I wonder why I, and others, falsely add that U in.

Because you, and (very few) others (judging by Google hits) can't spell?

I just tried your trick out with my ten year old daughter, as best I could by your instructions. She had some keys, I asked her to place them under one of 5 identical cups, I said they were 1-2-3-4 and 5, I touched 5 as I said it. She was nearest cup 1 and I was nearest cup 5. See if you can guess which cup she put it under?

You're also talking bollocks about transparency "just being down to a magician's style", I feel. Sure you have magicians who just do straight up tricks (like the Green fella you linked to - brilliant), and others (like Copperfield) who spend 10 minutes with farting about with lavish scenery telling some kind of half-baked story etc, but I don't think any of them intentionally make a trick look more shit than they need to. They won't "block" a visual effect any more than they need to, they won't take longer doing the actual "trick" part than they need to. Anyone who does I would guess is only doing so because, well, they're not good enough to pull off the better illusion. I can't see another explanation that makes sense.

[Kieran Child]

If she put it under anything other than 2 or 4 then you have got incredible unlucky on your first go
I was hoping for more videos of it on youtube so that you can see that it's always 4, but sadly the...erm....discworld dude... is the only one available.

Oh and TERASABOS doesn't mean bridging the gaps. It's an acronym for 'this effect requires acting skill and balls of steel'

[Jon Corby]

If she put it under anything other than 2 or 4 then you have got incredible unlucky on your first go
I was hoping for more videos of it on youtube so that you can see that it's always 4, but sadly the...erm....discworld dude... is the only one available.

Oh and TERASABOS doesn't mean bridging the gaps. It's an acronym for 'this effect requires acting skill and balls of steel'

I got incredibly unlucky. She went for 3.

I'm gonna try it on my missus when she gets in from work in about an hour. I'll let you know how that goes.

Also, your point about the YouTube videos - if it did work, and there were hundreds of YouTube videos showing people picking four, then surely quite a lot of people would see them, and wouldn't actually pick four? I've googled too, and not only cannot I not find videos, I can't find ANY literature at all actually describing this trick. And, if it were common knowledge, it simply couldn't work. And it doesn't anyway, from my significant statistical sample of one.

[Kieran Child]

You won't find literature describing it because it is magic. You will not find literature describing Lennart Green's snap deal (shown above) unless you buy it.
Terasabos is described in the book "Psychological Subtleties 2"

[Jon Corby]

You won't find literature describing it because it is magic. You will not find literature describing Lennart Green's snap deal (shown above) unless you buy it.
Terasabos is described in the book "Psychological Subtleties 2"

It's a bit odd to find literally nothing. I mean, if this forum were indexed, that'd be one hit. It's kinda odd, that nobody's discussed it anywhere, isn't it?

Anyway, still, it doesn't work. I don't believe somebody like Derren Brown could use it in a show or anything. I can't escape the fact that I can choose 1,2,3,4 or 5, and might have my own reasons for doing so. I may work all day with five of something that are numbered, and have a favourite one, and so any time I'm confronted with such a choice I'm led by that. Or just anything. The video you showed, the guy doesn't lead her at all, he doesn't push her into making a quick choice, he doesn't relate the situation to anything, he just basically says "pick a number from 1-5". I just don't see any reason why it should work.

[Kieran Child]

I don't consider it especially odd that nobody's discussed it anywhere. There are tonnes of these things.
"Think of a tool. And think of a colour that the tool is"
Will almost always be a red hammer.

He did lead her. He said "anything from one to five". This instantly rules out 1 and 5. If I say to you "think of a card, like a 3 or a Queen or something" you will definitely not think of a 3 or a queen.
After that psychology kicks in. 4 and 2 are seen as 'clever' choices.
Among young players of rock paper scizzors, rock is most common.
Among older players, scizzors is most common.
This is odd, but it is because we cannot shake off connections with certain things or positions. A pair of scizzors gives feelings of precision and utility. It is the 'clever' choice.
If I say "think of a number that I won't be able to predict". Apart from the fact that you personally know where I'm going so would now say ace of spades or something, most people would avoid the really high or low cards, because they're "obvious" and go for a card in the quartiles. It's the 'clever' choice. Actually on that above question, you get about a 20% response of "4 of clubs" which is nicely disproportionate.
But why 4 over 2? I really don't know this one. It could be that 2 is seen as a waste. If I deal down cards and tell you to say stop when you've reached one you are happy with, then you will not stop me on the first or second card, because it feels like a waste of the ability to wait.

[Michael Wallace]

Actually on that above question, you get about a 20% response of "4 of clubs" which is nicely disproportionate.

[citation needed]

[Kieran Child]

Devil's Picturebook

[Michael Wallace]

Devil's Picturebook

Well you could explain the study that found this, sample size, that sort of thing. Saying "20% of people do x" is quite a claim without any context.

[Jon Corby]

I don't consider it especially odd that nobody's discussed it anywhere. There are tonnes of these things.
"Think of a tool. And think of a colour that the tool is"
Will almost always be a red hammer.

Yes, I've heard of that one and thought of it too while musing on all this. Normally it requires some kind of brain-occupying work (like hard sums) followed by an INSTANT naming of a coloured tool (that's bigger than a bread bin). If someone doing a trick with me leisurely asks me to think of a coloured tool, and it's obvious that the trick is going to involve him guessing it, I'm not gonna go for a red hammer. Oh, and "think trick red hammer" and other such variants gets shitloads of Google hits.

He did lead her. He said "anything from one to five". This instantly rules out 1 and 5. If I say to you "think of a card, like a 3 or a Queen or something" you will definitely not think of a 3 or a queen.

No. No. No. This is the point I'm arguing. Some people are perverse.

Still, I'm gonna try it on my bird when she gets in in a minute, and I'll let you know how that goes.

Man, this debate feels like it's getting a bit heated though. You could cut the atmousphere in here with a pair of scizzors.

[Kieran Child]

There are never any studies that find these things, because magic builds up its knowledge base from outside the world of science. Thus the only things that can be used are magician's experiences. Of course, this is not scientifically sound, and so the cycle repeats, where the knowledge can only be used by other magicians. Everyone knows the carrot thing, but as far as I'm aware, it cannot be ascribed to any study anywhere.

[Michael Wallace]

Right, so maybe it's a bit disingenuous to try and use a claim like that to make a point in an argument?

[Kieran Child]

To Jon, yes you're right about the red hammer thing getting hits. Some more that quite possibly won't get so many hits:
"Think of a simple shape. A square is quite commonly used so don't bother with that, but think of a simple shape, with a different simple shape inside it" - Nice one this. They think of the AOL logo (or sometimes its reverse)
"You open up a car bonnet. What do you see other than the engine?" - Battery
"Think of a number between 1 and 50 that's made up of 2 different odd numbers" - 37
"Think of a colour" - Blue/Red

The hard sums thing never seemed especially necessary to me. There needs to be a way of ensuring someone follows their first thought, and crowding their mind with numbers might be a way of doing that, but meh.

I don't feel especially heated, but I don't actually remember ever feeling angry, so maybe this is it *shrugs*

[Kieran Child]

Right, so maybe it's a bit disingenuous to try and use a claim like that to make a point in an argument?

Firstly, it wasn't being used in a point. It was an aside.
Secondly, my argument is that psychology is used in mentalism, and so it's a very fitting source to show that.

[Jon Corby]

Okay, now my missus should be the most gullible, suggestible sort you could get for something like this.

She put them under a cup. And then when I turned round, she asked if she could move the cups around in case I'd marked any of them. I said fine, as she'd still know her original choice anyway, and we could say that what she did after that is irrelevant as it's not part of the trick.

She started by placing them under cup 1. When she moved the cups, it ended under number 3.

It's almost as if people are just picking random numbers between 1 and 5.

[Kieran Child]

^Heh. I can honestly say I do not know what is going wrong for you. It has never failed for me, nor the guy at the discworld convention (he is willing to do it in front of an audience too) nor Banachek, the inventor.

[Jon Corby]

^Heh. I can honestly say I do not know what is going wrong for you. It has never failed for me, nor the guy at the discworld convention (he is willing to do it in front of an audience too) nor Banachek, the inventor.

Well, it kinda did - it was in number 2 for him, not 4. Coming back to Charlie's point further up - you're right that he does mutter something about finding the watch by eliminating empty cups, but I don't think it was clear to me, presumably Kieran as well, his audience and the lady, that he was actually deliberately picking up an empty cup - that wasn't at all obvious from his presentation. He hovers over the other cups for a bit first - for all we know this could be him "eliminating" them before he zones in on the prize, which I assume is what we'd be expected to believe if the watch had been under cup no. 4. He is quite explicit before removing the second cup that he "thinks this one is definitely empty".

I'm gonna do this with a bloke at work next time I go to the coffee machine as well. I'll post the result here soon.

Edit: Okay, girl first. She chose 1. Then bloke came along (who didn't see anything first time). He chose 4. So so far 3, 1 (changed to 3), 1, 4. Looking pretty random so far.

Also let's just deal with these:

Think of a simple shape. A square is quite commonly used so don't bother with that, but think of a simple shape, with a different simple shape inside it" - Nice one this. They think of the AOL logo (or sometimes its reverse)

I'd say there are only three 'simple' shapes, and you're telling people to discount one of them! So it's frankly no surprise that they come up with a combination of the other two. You might consider a pentagon or hexagon simple, but many wouldn't. Even then, picturing a pentagon or hexagon inside/outside another isn't easy. Not at all the same as 5 cups. 4 isn't any more an obvious answer than 1,2,3 or 5.

"You open up a car bonnet. What do you see other than the engine?" - Battery

Again, what else would you expect most people to say?! How many people really know that many parts under a car bonnet?! Again, not at all the same as 5 cups.

When you give people a free choice, with no time contraints, the opportunity to change their mind, no particular external influences at all, they really are not that predictable. Not to the extent that people such as Derren Brown would need them to be.

Double edit: Also:

If Someone tells you that the score for a football match was 2-1 to a certain team, you wouldn't watch a recording of the entire 90 minutes.

I would if the match hadn't been played yet.



And I'd be doubly more impressed if their prediction was correct, than if they said after the match was played "I knew it was gonna be 2-1".

[Kieran Child]

On the simple shapes one, there is a minority picking of hearts, rectangles, diamonds and pentagons.
On the car parts one, there is a minority picking of washer fluid, brake fluid and coolant.

I don't know why you keep on saying that the video of the person didn't pick what I was demonstrating, because it is clear that I numbered them the opposite way around to the way he numbered them, and so the person picked four.

On your presentation, try emphasizing the word 'one' more, and you can do what the discworld guy did with demonstrating putting the keys under number 1. I've never found this necessary, but he did, and you might.

I don't know why you doubt the working of this trick, given that you've seen it performed (and it is clear that there was no out for the person had it been under cup number 1 or 5). Have you been able to find a copy of 'psychological subtleties 2'?

[Jon Corby]

I don't know why you keep on saying that the video of the person didn't pick what I was demonstrating, because it is clear that I numbered them the opposite way around to the way he numbered them, and so the person picked four.

Well if "four" isn't the cup next to "five", then what the fuck is it? You didn't say anything originally about where anyone was standing.

I don't know why you doubt the working of this trick, given that you've seen it performed (and it is clear that there was no out for the person had it been under cup number 1 or 5). Have you been able to find a copy of 'psychological subtleties 2'?

No, I don't know why I doubt it either. Oh wait, maybe it's because on the surface it sounds unlikely, and I've tried it four times and it's only "worked" once. Plus the numerous other problems I've pointed out, such as that it CANNOT work on anyone who's seen the trick before. What do you say if someone says "wow, that was cool, do it again!" ?

As for there being no out if it was under one or five - maybe, just maybe, he wouldn't have posted it on his YouTube channel if that were the case...

Why would finding a copy of 'Psychological Subtleties 2" help? I'm not going to believe it because I see it written there anymore than I do here. Unless there's something key you've missed out.

[Kevin Thurlow]

"Kieran Child wrote:
If Someone tells you that the score for a football match was 2-1 to a certain team, you wouldn't watch a recording of the entire 90 minutes.

Jon wrote....
I would if the match hadn't been played yet.

And I'd be doubly more impressed if their prediction was correct, than if they said after the match was played "I knew it was gonna be 2-1".
----
OK - Inter Milan will beat Barcelona 2-1 tonight - I think the winner will be in injury time.

[Kieran Child]

I don't know why you keep on saying that the video of the person didn't pick what I was demonstrating, because it is clear that I numbered them the opposite way around to the way he numbered them, and so the person picked four.

Well if "four" isn't the cup next to "five", then what the fuck is it? You didn't say anything originally about where anyone was standing.

I don't know why you doubt the working of this trick, given that you've seen it performed (and it is clear that there was no out for the person had it been under cup number 1 or 5). Have you been able to find a copy of 'psychological subtleties 2'?

No, I don't know why I doubt it either. Oh wait, maybe it's because on the surface it sounds unlikely, and I've tried it four times and it's only "worked" once. Plus the numerous other problems I've pointed out, such as that it CANNOT work on anyone who's seen the trick before. What do you say if someone says "wow, that was cool, do it again!" ?

As for there being no out if it was under one or five - maybe, just maybe, he wouldn't have posted it on his YouTube channel if that were the case...

Why would finding a copy of 'Psychological Subtleties 2" help? I'm not going to believe it because I see it written there anymore than I do here. Unless there's something key you've missed out.

4 is next to 5, but 1 and 5 are the other way around too. You are right about me not saying where you're standing. I should have done. The magician stands by number 5, thus when you touch the 5th cup, it's natural looking. Leaning half way across a table to demonstrate number 5 would make no sense.

If someone says "wow, that was cool, do it again" then a magician would do the same thing they would do with any trick - not do it again. It only works once, but then so do so many things in magic. There will likely be some stuff online for you to read on the method behind something called "the classic force" with cards. This is a move with no outs, and cannot work on the same person twice, but will have been used, at some point or other, by every magician.

He wouldn't have posted it on youtube had it gone wrong, but what sort of magician would be willing to destroy his reputation on 40% of the times the trick is performed?

Psychological Subtleties is a book written by the person who invented TERASABOS. Written as an instructional book to teach other magicians how to perform it. If TERASABOS didn't work, then banachek would not be as successful a magician as he is. If TERASABOS didn't work, then there would be some pretty major complaints coming out of the magic community about his book, but there aren't. The weird thing is that you seem to want to cut through the mystery and get to the answer with magic tricks, but then with this one, you've cut away the only answer, leaving you with nothing. Leaving you with the idea that people are picking cups at random and banachek is getting lucky in that the 60% of his shows that flop, people somehow forget about.

[Jon Corby]

He wouldn't have posted it on youtube had it gone wrong, but what sort of magician would be willing to destroy his reputation on 40% of the times the trick is performed?

If you'll pardon me for being rude, based on that video he appears to be a fucking shite entertainer. Plus elsewhere on his website he can barely contain his excitement at his new slot on one of those shitty phone-a-psychic channels buried deep in Sky. So I'm not sure he has a reputation to care about.

Psychological Subtleties is a book written by the person who invented TERASABOS. Written as an instructional book to teach other magicians how to perform it. If TERASABOS didn't work, then banachek would not be as successful a magician as he is. If TERASABOS didn't work, then there would be some pretty major complaints coming out of the magic community about his book, but there aren't. The weird thing is that you seem to want to cut through the mystery and get to the answer with magic tricks, but then with this one, you've cut away the only answer, leaving you with nothing. Leaving you with the idea that people are picking cups at random and banachek is getting lucky in that the 60% of his shows that flop, people somehow forget about.

No. I would have been prepared to accept it if you had said that a disproportionate number of people went for 4 (or 2) over the others. That I can take. People aren't that great at being truly random. This doesn't however make them utterly predictable in the way this trick requires. I personally haven't heard of Banachek. We can find only one instance on YouTube of this amazing trick being performed, and it's fairly unimpressive for the reasons discussed above. I wouldn't say this is great evidence that the trick is being extensively used with any success, would you?

[Kieran Child]

The disproportionate amount of people who choose 4 or 2 is all the trick requires.
The fact that the performance wasn't entertaining has no bearing on the fact that the magician was certain that the item wouldn't be under 1 or 5.
Banachek does have a reputation to live up to. He is quite possibly the most famous mentalist there is in the US. He is granted his own wikipedia page. The book psychological subtleties two won the magic woods award for best magic book in 2007. This would not have happened if it wasn't correct and contained magic tricks that didn't work.
How are you even saying it was performed?

[Jon O'Neill]

The disproportionate amount of people who choose 4 or 2 is all the trick requires.
The fact that the performance wasn't entertaining has no bearing on the fact that the magician was certain that the item wouldn't be under 1 or 5.
Banachek does have a reputation to live up to. He is quite possibly the most famous mentalist there is in the US. He is granted his own wikipedia page. The book psychological subtleties two won the magic woods award for best magic book in 2007. This would not have happened if it wasn't correct and contained magic tricks that didn't work.
How are you even saying it was performed?

Are you sure you're not actually Banachek himself?

[Jon Corby]

The disproportionate amount of people who choose 4 or 2 is all the trick requires.

My "disproportionate" just means more than 40% picking 2 or 4. Actually, I'd like to lose the "or 2" rider that we've acquired along the way. For the trick to actually work it has to be in 4 100% of the time.

The fact that the performance wasn't entertaining has no bearing on the fact that the magician was certain that the item wouldn't be under 1 or 5.

No, but he was undeniably poor. And he was the only person we can find doing this trick. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see him attempt this or a similar trick and for it to go wrong. And given his psychic channel background, I don't really expect him to be all that upfront about it if his act went badly.

The book psychological subtleties two won the magic woods award for best magic book in 2007. This would not have happened if it wasn't correct and contained magic tricks that didn't work.
How are you even saying it was performed?

Okay, let's accept the fact that this trick isn't widely performed as part of a proper magic show, since it pretty much isn't mentioned anywhere on the internet other than that one video. This also ties in with the fact that the trick can't really be widely known, or it wouldn't work (if it does work). I would posit that the reason for this is: the trick has a risk element, and actually isn't impressive enough to warrant taking that risk as part of a proper magic show (ie not done amongst friends in an informal setting, where it going wrong will just result in a bit of mickey-taking, not a massive loss of credibility). The trick would be much more impressive (although again you probably disagree with this) if the prediction is made before the whole thing. It could be sealed in an envelope and handed to another volunteer, to be revealed afterwards. That would be quite cool. Anyway, let's say it's like the coloured tool one. For all the red hammers you're gonna get, eventually you'll get some perverse/creative joker and you'll be there all night trying to guess his aquamarine bradawl. I don't really believe any decent magicians can leave anything down to chance. I'd like to see how it's presented in the book. If it's akin to the red hammer type thing, it'll be as a curiosity you can try on a few friends, and chances are you'll get lucky... until eventually you won't. I remember reading one of Derren's books a few years ago, and he suggested he read which hand a coin was in by various signs, such as the holder subconsciously pointing the tip of the nose towards it. That's bullshit. It doesn't become true just because a famous "mentalist" wrote it.

For a trick like this to be 100% reliable, I'm left thinking that there's some kind of proper trickery going on - he can somehow tell which cup has an object under, or is being told by a plant from the audience, or something. A trick which leaves me thinking the only explanations are "luck" or "a stooge" is a great trick. I'm not that great at working out how tricks are done though, in all honesty.

[Jon Corby]

Right. I'm seriously not impressed here.

Since I've added in the "demonstrating how to put the object under a cup" using cup number one, I've shown 5 people. I also told one of them what I did, and she has shown two others.

And all seven of these have chosen cup number four. What the fuck is wrong with these people. This is really embarrassing. Not happy at all.

[Gavin Chipper]

Right. I'm seriously not impressed here.

Since I've added in the "demonstrating how to put the object under a cup" using cup number one, I've shown 5 people. I also told one of them what I did, and she has shown two others.

And all seven of these have chosen cup number four. What the fuck is wrong with these people. This is really embarrassing. Not happy at all.

What sort of people have these been? As you've said yourself there's always a risk of finding someone who wants to fuck the magician over. I suppose part of the skill as a magician is in picking your volunteer as well.

[Jon Corby]

For fuck's sake. I am feeling sick from gorging on humble pie.

Just done it on my 62 year old mother, my 8 year old son, and my 5 year old daughter. And they all put it under number 4. So that makes ten in a row now since I started doing the "demonstrate how to put the object under a cup, using the number one cup".

I'm so annoyed with people. What is wrong with them? Why can't they just pick a fucking random number between 1 and 5. Idiots.

I should be pleased at learning a new trick, but instead I'm just too annoyed at people being so rubbish.

And of course I owe you an apology Kieran.

(That was it by the way)

Plus I'm now having to reassess my whole stance on people like Derren Brown. I've always vehemently argued that it's a load of guff, that he's always just doing Paul Daniels tricks, and giving you a bullshit explanation about mind stuff to throw you off the real scent and make himself appear different and special. And now I'm just confused and I need to start all over again. If *I* can be taught to do a simple trick like this with a few lines over the internet, what can people who actually study it (and maybe understand why this works) achieve? I don't bloody know.

Not a good day

[Jon Corby]

Right. I'm seriously not impressed here.

Since I've added in the "demonstrating how to put the object under a cup" using cup number one, I've shown 5 people. I also told one of them what I did, and she has shown two others.

And all seven of these have chosen cup number four. What the fuck is wrong with these people. This is really embarrassing. Not happy at all.

What sort of people have these been? As you've said yourself there's always a risk of finding someone who wants to fuck the magician over. I suppose part of the skill as a magician is in picking your volunteer as well.

A whole variety. Some logic-head developers, some churchy types, some HR admin sorts, and as I said, my mum and also my two young kids. And it's 100% since I started introducing the demo using cup 1. Everyone needs to try this and report back.

[Gavin Chipper]

Can it be used the other way round to get them to guess which cup you've put it under?

[Jon Corby]

Can it be used the other way round to get them to guess which cup you've put it under?

Dunno quite what you mean.

[Gavin Chipper]

Can it be used the other way round to get them to guess which cup you've put it under?

Dunno quite what you mean.

Well, if I've got this right, they put the thing under "number 4" while you're not looking and then you correctly "guess" number 4. But what if you took an object and hid it under a cup and told them to guess which it was under - would they pick number 4?

[Jon Corby]

Can it be used the other way round to get them to guess which cup you've put it under?

Dunno quite what you mean.

Well, if I've got this right, they put the thing under "number 4" while you're not looking and then you correctly "guess" number 4. But what if you took an object and hid it under a cup and told them to guess which it was under - would they pick number 4?

Dunno. Probably not I'm guessing.

I've just posted this on the football365 forum, and they're saying people are saying 1,2,3 and calling me a uselss cunt. So now I'm just thinking "well, you're just not doing it right". Which is what Kieran must have been thinking of me earlier...

[Kieran Child]

Hah, no worries Jon. If you enjoy performing it, then practice the line when you say the cups are labelled "1 to 5" and maybe later say put the object under "1 to 5" and on both times make the word 1 stand out as best you can while keeping it natural. Once you're confident in doing this, then demonstrating putting the object under number 1 won't be necessary, and this means you can do the whole thing of saying they can choose the object as well.
As for Derren Brown, the vast majority of his stuff IS guff. With enough thought, you can make almost any David Blaine trick look like it's some sort of psychology. Make that the majority, and add in a few genuine psychological quirks and you have become a mentalist.
Look forward to seeing you at the next discworld convention

[Kevin Thurlow]

"OK - Inter Milan will beat Barcelona 2-1 tonight - I think the winner will be in injury time."

Well they have got to play each other again...

I did use a Derren Brown idea at the Indian Embassy when I needed to get a visa. The miserable guy behind the grille didn't want to take the letter of invitation from the conference as proof as I was going, so I looked him straight in the eye, and said, "It's all right, take it." So he did.

This was actually a Pyrrhic victory as the anti-malarial tablets caused health problems, so I would have been better off not going.

[Jon O'Neill]

Hah, no worries Jon. If you enjoy performing it, then practice the line when you say the cups are labelled "1 to 5" and maybe later say put the object under "1 to 5" and on both times make the word 1 stand out as best you can while keeping it natural. Once you're confident in doing this, then demonstrating putting the object under number 1 won't be necessary, and this means you can do the whole thing of saying they can choose the object as well.
As for Derren Brown, the vast majority of his stuff IS guff. With enough thought, you can make almost any David Blaine trick look like it's some sort of psychology. Make that the majority, and add in a few genuine psychological quirks and you have become a mentalist.
Look forward to seeing you at the next discworld convention

I did it twice to people at work, and they both picked cup number 5. Must be doing something wrong.

[Jon Corby]

Hah, no worries Jon. If you enjoy performing it, then practice the line when you say the cups are labelled "1 to 5" and maybe later say put the object under "1 to 5" and on both times make the word 1 stand out as best you can while keeping it natural. Once you're confident in doing this, then demonstrating putting the object under number 1 won't be necessary, and this means you can do the whole thing of saying they can choose the object as well.
As for Derren Brown, the vast majority of his stuff IS guff. With enough thought, you can make almost any David Blaine trick look like it's some sort of psychology. Make that the majority, and add in a few genuine psychological quirks and you have become a mentalist.
Look forward to seeing you at the next discworld convention

I did it twice to people at work, and they both picked cup number 5. Must be doing something wrong.

Probably. I'm on 10-in-a-row for 4 since I "perfected" my pitch, which by chance would be somewhere up near 10m/1.

[Jon O'Neill]

I'm up to 4 and 4, the first four being failures, and the next four being successes. The only change I made was that I made sure the other person was directly opposite me, not sort of side-on. Will carry on.

[Jon Corby]

I'm up to 4 and 4, the first four being failures, and the next four being successes. The only change I made was that I made sure the other person was directly opposite me, not sort of side-on. Will carry on.

I've always had the people next to me. I was gonna say I'd always been nearer the 5 cup, but that isn't actually true, thinking about it. I wonder if there's a point where you just perfect your presentation, and that confidence somehow helps. I mean, I said my turning point was demoing with the first cup, but maybe something else subtle changed as well. Also, just reading that back, is the biggest u-turn by anyone ever in a c4c thread?

[Craig Beevers]

I'm up to 4 and 4, the first four being failures, and the next four being successes. The only change I made was that I made sure the other person was directly opposite me, not sort of side-on. Will carry on.

I've always had the people next to me. I was gonna say I'd always been nearer the 5 cup, but that isn't actually true, thinking about it. I wonder if there's a point where you just perfect your presentation, and that confidence somehow helps. I mean, I said my turning point was demoing with the first cup, but maybe something else subtle changed as well. Also, just reading that back, is the biggest u-turn by anyone ever in a c4c thread?

A certain D Eadie might pip you, although technically it was across two c4c threads. But since he actually stopped posting it's probably just a group hallucination and we're all in fact on a space ship 3 million years from Earth.

[Jon Corby]

Who's looking forward to getting stuck to their sofa tonight then?

[Jeffrey Burgin]

Who's looking forward to getting stuck to their sofa tonight then?

My mate reckons he'll just say at the end of the show 'There. I've made you stick to your seat for 30 minutes by watching my programme. It didn't work on everyone, as some got up to the toilet or to make a cuppa, but many of you have been stuck to your sofa for the last half an hour.'

If he does that, I'm gonna write a strongly-worded letter in BOLD RED CAPITALS.

[Jon Corby]

Who's looking forward to getting stuck to their sofa tonight then?

My mate reckons he'll just say at the end of the show 'There. I've made you stick to your seat for 30 minutes by watching my programme. It didn't work on everyone, as some got up to the toilet or to make a cuppa, but many of you have been stuck to your sofa for the last half an hour.'

If he does that, I'm gonna write a strongly-worded letter in BOLD RED CAPITALS.

I don't think it'll be that lame. He's gonna play a bit of video apparently which is supposed to do the work. I think there'll be the suggestion that the people it works on are somehow "special" or "gifted", and a certain section of people will want to conform. Particularly if there's a phone line to ring in, it'll be backed up with people wanting to get on TV and be part of it. People used to ring up and say Uri Geller had mended their watches or made their spoons bend, for Christ's sake.

[Jeffrey Burgin]

I don't think it'll be that lame.

Did you not see last week?

Hopefully there is some sorta video thingy though, this stunt kinda reminds me when I was 'hypnotised' to sort out who was most likely to play along the hypnotist guy did some thing where you make your hands stick together. Tbf that was genuinely weird, I couldn't actually unstick my hands.

[Phil Reynolds]

to sort out who was most likely to play along the hypnotist guy did some thing where you make your hands stick together. Tbf that was genuinely weird, I couldn't actually unstick my hands.

The show where I was "hypnotised" kicked off with exactly the same stunt. From what I can remember, I felt as though I could easily pull my hands apart if I wanted to - I just had no particularly strong will to do so, and it was easier to keep them clasped together. This "go with the flow" mood then pretty much governed my actions for the next 45 minutes or so.

[Jon Corby]

I'm up to 4 and 4, the first four being failures, and the next four being successes. The only change I made was that I made sure the other person was directly opposite me, not sort of side-on. Will carry on.

I've always had the people next to me. I was gonna say I'd always been nearer the 5 cup, but that isn't actually true, thinking about it. I wonder if there's a point where you just perfect your presentation, and that confidence somehow helps. I mean, I said my turning point was demoing with the first cup, but maybe something else subtle changed as well. Also, just reading that back, is the biggest u-turn by anyone ever in a c4c thread?

Ha, I just did the exact routine on someone else at work (who nobody has told about it, so it was all completely new to him etc) and he stuck it under number one. So now I'm back to saying people aren't wholly predictable. Oh, I don't fucking know.

[Sue Sanders]

I'm up to 4 and 4, the first four being failures, and the next four being successes. The only change I made was that I made sure the other person was directly opposite me, not sort of side-on. Will carry on.

I've always had the people next to me. I was gonna say I'd always been nearer the 5 cup, but that isn't actually true, thinking about it. I wonder if there's a point where you just perfect your presentation, and that confidence somehow helps. I mean, I said my turning point was demoing with the first cup, but maybe something else subtle changed as well. Also, just reading that back, is the biggest u-turn by anyone ever in a c4c thread?

Ha, I just did the exact routine on someone else at work (who nobody has told about it, so it was all completely new to him etc) and he stuck it under number one. So now I'm back to saying people aren't wholly predictable. Oh, I don't fucking know.

Well, you just proved it , didn't you?....so, deep down, you do know. This trick obviously has to about having the confidence to brazen it out when it doesn't work, which you won't have to do too much because most people conform.