WHY DO GAMBLERS LOSE?

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2647, 1 November 1909, Page 4

WHY DO GAMBLERS LOSE?

SIR HIRAM MAXIM EXPLAINS: That gamblers lose in the long run is fairly well proved. The why and the wherefore of this proposition is clearly demonstrated bv an article entitled “The Fallacy of Gambling,” contributed bv Sir Hiram Alaxim to the September‘number .of “Pearson’s Alagazine.” He points out that at the roulette tables, at Alonte Carlo, the bank has a percentage in its favor of 1.35 per cent., and this in the long run is quite sufficient to defeat any system, however ingenious. He writes of systems as follows: — “The simplest of all systems is. the Alartingale, which in common English means ‘double or quits.’ “There! are two Alartingales, the small and the great. In the small Martingale the aim is to get back all previous losses in one ‘coup,’ and to leave you a winner of one unit at tlio finish. The progression is as follows: 1,2, 4,8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1,024. If you play this system at a roulette ta‘ble with a limit of five francs, it takes eleven consecutive losses to defeat you, and one loss less at the trente-et-quarante table, where the minimum stake-is twenty francs. But unhappily for believers in this simple system , a run of eleven is by no means uncommon, so that the retirement of a player following this method is never very long delayed; for, though, of course, he may miss the adverse runs, the fact remains that, roughly speaking, there is about one run of 15 at the Casino every' day; there are two runs of 14, four of 13, eight of 12, sixteen of 11, thirty-two of 10, and sixty-four of 9. - , “The great Alartingale aims a getting back all previous losses, and winning one unit for every ‘coup’ played, the progression being, 1,3, 7. 15, 31, 63, 127, 255, 511, 1,023 and the player is defeated b.v ten consecutive losses at roulette and nine at trente-et-quar-ante. . “When first I visited Monte Carlo I met a friend who asked me to go into the Casino with him; so that he might show me how easy it was to make one louis without any risk. I consented, but things were against my friend, and he very quickly reached a stake of sixteeu louis. This was raked in, and he gave up the task, remarking that he was not looking for such a run against him at the very beginning-of his game. He was playing one of those ‘infallible’ systems. “On one point' with regard to systems I would lay particular stress, and that is that no matter wliat system is played tlie bank must have its fixed percentage; it on even chances of roulette, 1.35 per cent, of all money is sacrificed to zero; if at trente-ot-quar-afite, the" percentage is slightly less, namely,- 1.28. With all systems, no • matter how they may be played, the bank’s percentage is a fixed quantity I within the thousandth part of 1 per cent.; for instance, if w r e make ten consecutive stakes at roulette of ten francs, each on the even chances, tlie bank, on the average, gets from, this transaction Ifr. 35 centimes.”