|
gambler has gone through the mystic process described, or some other equally absurd and irrelevant maneuver, then the superstition is confirmed. Yet all the time there is no real faith in it. Such practices are like the absurd invocation of Indian medicine men'; there is a sort of vague hope that something good may come of them, no real faith in their efficacy.
The best proof of the utter absence of real faith in superstitions about luck, even among gambling men, the most superstitious of mankind, may be found in the incongruity of their two leading ideas. If there are two forms of expression more frequently than any others in the mouth of gambling men, they are those which relate to being in luck or out of luck on the one hand, and to the idea that luck must change on the other. Professional gamblers, like Steinmetz and his kind, have become so satisfied that these ideas are sound, whatever else may be unsound, in regard to luck, that they have invented technical expressions to present these theories of theirs, failing utterly to notice that the ideas are inconsistent with each other, and cannot both be right--though both may be wrong, and are so.
A player is said to be ' in the vein' when he has for some time been fortunate. He should only go on playing, if he is wise, at such a time, and at such a time only should he be backed. Having been lucky he is likely, according to this notion, to continue lucky. But, on the other hand, the theory called 'the maturity of the chances' teaches that the luck cannot continue more than a certain time in one direction; when it has reached maturity in that direction it must change. Therefore, when a man has been 'in the vein' for a certain time (unfortunately no Steinmetz can say precisely how long), it is unsafe to back him, for he must be on the verge of a change of luck.
Of course the gambler is confirmed in his superstition, whichever event may befall in such cases. When he wins he applauds himself for following the luck, or for duly anticipating a change of luck, as the case may be; when he loses, he simply regrets his folly in not seeing that the luck must change, or in not standing by the winner.
And with regard to the idea that luck must change, and that in the long run events must run even, it is noteworthy how few gambling men recognize either, on the one hand, how inconsistent this idea is with their belief in luck which may be trusted (or, in their slang, may be safely backed), or, on the other hand, the real way in which luck 'comes even' after a sufficiently long run.
A man who has played long with success goes on because he regards himself as lucky. A man who has played long without success goes on because he considers that the luck is bound to change. The latter goes on with the idea that, if he only plays long enough, he must at least at some time or other recover his losses.
|
