|
the number of successes bear the right proportion to the number of failures, yet B might be ruined long before this happened, though quite as probably A would be ruined. B's ruin, if effected, would be brought about by steadily continued small losses, A's by a casual but overwhelming loss. The richer B and A were, the longer it would be before one or other was ruined, though the eventual ruin of one or other would be certain. If one was much richer than the other, his .chance of escaping ruin would be so much the greater, and so much greater, therefore, the risk of the poorer. In other words, the odds would be great in favor of the richer of the two, whether A or B, absorbing the whole property of the other, if wagering on this plan were continued steadily for a long time.
Now, if we extend such considerations as these to the case in which an individual player contends against a bank, we shall see that, even without any percentage on the chances, the odds would be largely in favor of the bank. If the player is persistent in applying his system, he is practically certain to be ruined. For it is noticed that in such a system the player is exposed
to that which he can least afford, namely, sudden and great loss; it is by such losses that his ruin will be brought about if at all. On the other hand, the bank, which can best afford such losses, has to meet only a steady slow drain upon its resources, until the inevitable coup comes which restore all that had been thus drained out, and more along with it. If the player were even to carry on his system in the manner which my reasoning has really implied; if, as he made his small gain at each venture, he set it by to form a reserve fund--even then his ruin would be inevitable in the long run. But every one knows that gamblers do, nothing of the sort. ' Lightly come, lightly go,' is their rule, so far as their gains are concerned. [In another sense, their rule is, lightly come (to the gaming-table) and heavily go when the last pound has been staked and lost.] Thus they run a risk which, in their way of playing, amounts almost to a certainty of ruining them- selves, and they do not even take the precaution which would alone give them their one small, almost evanescent chance of escape. On the other hand, the bankers, who are really playing an almost perfectly safe game, leave nothing to chance. The bulk of the money gained by them is reserved to maintain the balance necessary for safety. Only the actual profits of their system--the percentage of gain due to their percentage on the chances --is dealt with as income; that is, as money to be spent. It is true that in one sense the case between the bankers and the public resembles that of a player with a small capital against a player with a large capital;
|
