• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Derren Brown Blackjack

Speed of Light

Critical Thinker
S
Joined
Sep 23, 2006
Messages
310
Derren Brown wins at a casino here -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqiiYYmJNKQ

I'm not convinced I understand why he took a card when he had 16 against the dealer's 6, when there were a lot of cards left in the shoe

Did he know what the next card was going to be?

or was the whole thing a fake?
 
Last edited:
As far as I can tell, and I'm no card-expert at all, what he was doing was simply "counting cards". It's a well-known card-sharping method, and forbidden in all casinos. They twigged to him as well.
 
Zep said:
As far as I can tell, and I'm no card-expert at all, what he was doing was simply "counting cards". It's a well-known card-sharping method, and forbidden in all casinos. They twigged to him as well.
Click to expand...

But taking a card when you have 16 against a dealer's 6, is exceedingly bad play in any system.
Also, because there were a lot of cards left in the shoe, the proportion of low cards coudn't possibly have deviated from the norm by that much.
 
Speed of Light said:
But taking a card when you have 16 against a dealer's 6, is exceedingly bad play in any system.
Also, because there were a lot of cards left in the shoe, the proportion of low cards coudn't possibly have deviated from the norm by that much.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely correct here. If anyone did this in any casino I've been in, the other players would show their contempt and most likely find another table to get away from such a dangerous, card playing fool.

(BTW I only go to casinos when I am away from home and bored. When I lose $100, I leave. In my last two trips away, I'm up $2,000. I know that players will always eventually lose, but playing by the "rules", like not drawing on a 16 against a dealer's 6, you will survive a while, and may get lucky).
 
Speed of Light said:
But taking a card when you have 16 against a dealer's 6, is exceedingly bad play in any system.
Also, because there were a lot of cards left in the shoe, the proportion of low cards coudn't possibly have deviated from the norm by that much.
Click to expand...
How many were ACTUALLY left? More than half? By halfway, there should be a fairly even spread of cards already played. But if the played cards showed a clear tilt towards the high end, that would mean better odds for low cards still in the shoe. He just rode his luck.

I'm no expert on gambling or blackjack by any stretch, but I would have stuck too.
 
Zep said:
How many were ACTUALLY left? More than half? By halfway, there should be a fairly even spread of cards already played. But if the played cards showed a clear tilt towards the high end, that would mean better odds for low cards still in the shoe. He just rode his luck.

I'm no expert on gambling or blackjack by any stretch, but I would have stuck too.
Click to expand...
You'd most likely have lost. There are 4 or 5 decks in play (can't remember), and there's a re-deal after every hand, at least in Australia. Card counting doesn't work, apart from thinking "hmmm, there's a few aces dealt here, so it's unlikely there will another one coming".

That's unless I'm missing something here.
 
I suspect we have only been shown one segment of a much larger series of plays - the deliberate choice of the tail end of a fairly normal distribution of play plus some card counting.

Linda
 
The point I was trying to make, was that in that one hand when he had 16 against dealer's 6, the way he played it gave a clue and indicated that something fishy was going on, and that all was not as it seemed.
The chances of the way he played it, being mathematically the best option, are astronomically against - the high number of cards visibly left in the shoe, makes it even more unlikely that the deviation from the norm could possibly be that great in the remaining cards.
I suspected that he might have been using a more sophisticated system, one based on electonics!
 
Zep said:
As far as I can tell, and I'm no card-expert at all, what he was doing was simply "counting cards". It's a well-known card-sharping method, and forbidden in all casinos. They twigged to him as well.
Click to expand...

I just wish to point that it is not 'forbidden', and cannot be, as long as you are only using your own brain. Of course, the casino does not like to loose, and if you win too much, they'll kick you out. I'm also fairly confident that the multi-player team card counting (that for instance the MIT student team applied -- multiple players play on different tables and count, and signal a 'high stakes' player when the card count is in their favor) is not really forbidden per se, but, since casinos are private property, the casino will not allow them to play or even stay if they see what they are doing. Casinos have also changed the procedure to make card counting more difficult, such as shuffling more often, or introducing fresh decks.

The thing is, Blackjack, like most other casino games, attract more players if the players believe they can win. If the casinos meddle too much with the rules, they will attract less players. Fortunately for the casinos, card counting and perfect strategy playing Blackjack is pretty stressful on the players, and only a minority of players can pull it off. Team playing reduces the stress level, but increases the risk of exposure. Again, it's not 'forbidden' in a legal sense, but it kinda sucks if you get kicked out, and other casinos get informed to not let you play anymore.

Another point: A certain amount of high stakes playing and winning is wanted by the casinos. It advertises the game, and attracts the more plentiful, but naive and untrained players to loose money.
 
Last edited:
he took the card at 16 because he is demonstrating how it is not usual, but he was showing his talent. If he had have stuck it might not have made very good TV...

the casino knew he was there and he probably picked one that only used 4 decks and that would let them play for a while so he could count cards successfully.

one thing i always go by is never, ever, ever trust anything derren brown says, so who knows what is going on.
 
your all over looking the simplicity of this stunt (there were 4 decks in play) adam you came closest when you said never to believe a word derren says (i know how this is done it doesnt involve counting or television edits it is infact much, much simpler i kicked myself when i realised the workings behind it) Pete
 
olympic adam said:
he took the card at 16 because he is demonstrating how it is not usual, but he was showing his talent. If he had have stuck it might not have made very good TV...

the casino knew he was there and he probably picked one that only used 4 decks and that would let them play for a while so he could count cards successfully.

one thing i always go by is never, ever, ever trust anything derren brown says, so who knows what is going on.
Click to expand...

The vast majoity of people seem to believe implicitly what Darren Brown says - At least one of my friends trained in NLP because of him - With most conjurers, everyone knows that it is just a trick, but with him, it possibly could be considered as borderline fraud,
But the only reason I was interested in how he did it, was because of what the (supposed) dealer said at the end, assuming it had at least a grain of truth in it!

DRturner said:
your all over looking the simplicity of this stunt (there were 4 decks in play) adam you came closest when you said never to believe a word derren says (i know how this is done it doesnt involve counting or television edits it is infact much, much simpler i kicked myself when i realised the workings behind it) Pete
Click to expand...

When he took a card at 16, my first thought was that the cameras were electronically reading the back of the next card in the shoe, either using ultra violet or microscopic markings.

Is there a simpler way??
 
When he took a card at 16, my first thought was that the cameras were electronically reading the back of the next card in the shoe, either using ultra violet or microscopic markings.

Is there a simpler way??[/QUOTE]

yeah a much much more simple technique employed using no electrics or gimmickry (if you could somehow get hold of some of his books *COUGH* download *COUGH* you can see how this particular stunt is done (i knew it before this when i was interested in deck memory TRICKS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom