Derren Brown: Archive
| Message ID: 05043 | [ Previous ] [ Next ] [ Up Thread ] |
From: Keith Mander
Date: Sat May 3, 2003 6:32pm
Subject: Re: Dog track thought....
I work as on course bookie's assistant and have worked at a few dog
tracks and also have a fair understanding of the Tote system as well
as the computer technologies.
As I understand it, the cash draw/computer combo system has been
designed so that anyone can operate it without any knowledge of
bookmaking (which is quite a skilled occupation). Most rails/ring
bookies use computers these days but not at dog tracks - so I agree
with the comment below that it would seem to be easier for Derren to
use a bookie rather than the Tote.
The cashier, although quite experienced will probably rarely take in
an interest in the actual race and allow the computer to handle all
the calculations/verifications of the 'winning ticket'. So I again
agree that what he does really is difficult to explain as regardless
to what he suggests, the machine will still reject the ticket and not
display the amount to pay out.
The only explination I can think of is that Derren deliberatly waited
until some time after the end of the race to collect his winnings. By
doing so, it is likely the cashier will be quite aware of how much to
pay out for a particular stake. Derren then puts the cashier into some
sort of hynosis/trance/whatever that makes her believe that the
machine accepts the bet (as the real winning ticket) and then she pays
out the correct sum calculated by herself.
Any thoughts/questions?
Keith
PS - London tickets are still available.
--- In a previous message, richardwrote:
> I agree with Terry that getting a pay-out on a losing ticket
involving computerised systems would be near on impossible. It may
have been a switch as Paulo and other group members have suggested ,
and perhaps some sharp editing deleted the moment the switch was made.
> There are other points - DB wanted to create an 'effect' ; so what
did the setting of a greyhound race provide to the mechanics of
predictably making the effect work?
> I may be wrong but generally does a standard g.h. race involve 6
dogs ? Unlike horse racing , bets are frequently written down by Trap
Number , not by the animal's name. If so , it would be possible to
make 6 bets, on 6 individual tickets , stated as 6 numbers ; much
easier for covert 'counting off' before the switch took place. One
ticket would be a winner ; the winnings + plus the returned stake
would offset part of the outlay ( and the overall outlay would , in TV
budget terms at least, be a pittance ) - also one or two dogs would be
'outsiders' at big odds & covered at much reduced stakes for a bigger
return - even betting on the tote. Why use the Tote when there would
have been 'rails' or 'ring' bookies at the same track, of whom some if
not all would be without computerised system to confirm winning
tickets & having fewer staff involved ? DB's assistant could also
figure in it - as priming the assistant , off camera , by suggestion
to believe he was presenting a losing ticket instead of , in fact , a
winning ticket would seem both more reliable & easier method than -
as Terry has pointed out - the prospect of trying to dupe a ( probably
experienced ) cashier backed up by a computerised system? Wonder too
if an intelligent person with training in Law would on national TV
pull a trick that , at face value , would leave him wide open to
> criminal proceedings ?! :0)
> TTFN
> Rich
