Derren Brown - Lottery trick

[Gerrardasnails]

cram:
Gerrardasnails:You were right the first time too.

I know i'm being nit picky and anal etc. but he wasn't right. He said "The amount of times i have said to people that theres just as much chance as the same 6 numbers coming out every single weeek forever, as there is as any numbers coming out."

Baring the machine breaking done it is absolutely guaranteed that a set of number will come out. The odds that it is the same set of numbers that come out forever is infinitesimally small, which is my way of saying I can't be bothered to calcuate it.

Lets take a very simple example. I predict that two tosses of a coin will both yield a head. Ignorning the statistical possibility of landing on the edge, the odds if me being correct are 1 iin 4 because there are four possible combinations. The odds of me being correct on any individual toss of the coin are 1 in 2 - so predicting across multiple interations is an whole different order of magnitude.

No, you are wrong. Each time you toss a coin there is a 1 in 2 chance of the result. If you are predicting a single result (like each Lotto draw, you are predicting 6 numbers, or each flip of a coin, there is one outcome), each time you do it, you still get one result. You could draw, 1,2,3,4,5 and 6, one week and then there is as much chance drawing the exact same result the next week as any other combination. Better example, roulette. You have 38(?) numbers and it lands on 3. The next spin it's still 38/1 that it will land on 3.

 

[Messiah]

I can see both sides of calculations here and it comes down to how you want to look at it really.

Are we dealing with Conditional or Unconditional probability??

If it is unconditional and we are looking at there chance of any random set of numbers occurring it is 1 in 13,983,816.

The chance of the same set of numbers occuring at random is 1 in 13,983,816

However, once we start putting conditions onto the draw then the odds change:

If you take the random part out and start looking for a specific set of numbers then:

The chance of a specific (Conditional) set of numbers occuring on the 1st draw is 1 in 13,983,816

The chance of the same specific numbers occuring on the second draw is now 1 in 195,547,109,921,856

 

[The_Lhc]

Gerrardasnails:cram:Gerrardasnails:You were right the first time too.

I know i'm being nit picky and anal etc. but he wasn't right. He said "The amount of times i have said to people that theres just as much chance as the same 6 numbers coming out every single weeek forever, as there is as any numbers coming out."

Baring the machine breaking done it is absolutely guaranteed that a set of number will come out. The odds that it is the same set of numbers that come out forever is infinitesimally small, which is my way of saying I can't be bothered to calcuate it.

Lets take a very simple example. I predict that two tosses of a coin will both yield a head. Ignorning the statistical possibility of landing on the edge, the odds if me being correct are 1 iin 4 because there are four possible combinations. The odds of me being correct on any individual toss of the coin are 1 in 2 - so predicting across multiple interations is an whole different order of magnitude.

No, you are wrong. Each time you toss a coin there is a 1 in 2 chance of the result. If you are predicting a single result (like each Lotto draw, you are predicting 6 numbers, or each flip of a coin, there is one outcome), each time you do it, you still get one result.

Yes but he clearly said "I predict that two tosses of a coin will both yield a head." ie, he's predicting that upfront, before any coins are tossed. In which case it's 0.5^2 = 0.25 or 1 in 4.

The difference is important when you're trying to decide whether to call with an inside straight draw after a raise on the flop...

You could draw, 1,2,3,4,5 and 6, one week and then there is as much chance drawing the exact same result the next week as any other combination. Better example, roulette. You have 38(?) numbers and it lands on 3. The next spin it's still 38/1 that it will land on 3.

But the chances of it happening twice in a row are 1/1444. Incidentally you'll only get paid at 35/1 or 1225/1 if you win and let it ride. Which is why the house always wins, ultimately.

Anyway, you don't want to play roulette, you want to play Black Jack, much smaller house advantage.

 

[John Duncan]

One week the number of people who predicted the lottery numbers as being 1,2,3,4,5,6 was 99,999. What are the odds of that?!?!?

 

[John Duncan]

I have used Excel to follow Derren's logic but with a bigger sample size to eradicate statistical error. Thus I can confidently predict that this week's lottery numbers will be:

25,25,25,25,25,25

 

[Ravey Gravey Davy]

JohnDuncan:I have used Excel to follow Derren's logic but with a bigger sample size to eradicate statistical error. Thus I can confidently predict that this week's lottery numbers will be: 25,25,25,25,25,25

What's the lucky number just in case you get one wrong.

 

[John Duncan]

Hang on, will get my spreadsheet out...

 

[matengawhat]

so why didn't at least 24 ppl win the lottery last week because if i trully beleived what he said and was one of those 24 ppl in the show we would have all been down the pub saturday morning predicting the next set and every week since!!!!

 

[hammill]

He did not tell them the numbers in time - obviously he couldn't because it was a trick. If anyone believed what he said, they would be an idiot.

 

[matengawhat]

hammill:He did not tell them the numbers in time - obviously he couldn't because it was a trick. If anyone believed what he said, they would be an idiot.

my point exactly!!!!!

 

[hammill]

matengawhat:

hammill:He did not tell them the numbers in time - obviously he couldn't because it was a trick. If anyone believed what he said, they would be an idiot.

my point exactly!!!!!
Quite so. A lot of them about I am afraid.

 

[Anonymous]

It was a neat little TV stunt, nothing more.

My guess is that it was split screen, hence the use of the shaky hand camera, which smacks of a deliberate attempt to make people go "it couldn't be split screen because of the camera shake".

Anyway, whatever.

 

[Alec]

Erm...wasnt his closing line something like "and if anyone asks, ill tell them it was just a trick"...?