|
involve a larger immediate risk.
In point of fact, the supposition that any system can be devised by which success in games of chance may be made certain, is as utterly unphilosophical as faith in the invention of perpetual motion. That the
supposition has been entertained by many who have passed all their lives in gambling proves only--what might also be safely inferred from the very fact of their being gamblers--that they know nothing of the laws of probability. Many men who have passed all their lives among machinery believe confidently in the possibility of perpetual motion. They are familiar with machinery, but utterly ignorant of mechanics. In Iike manner, the life-long gambler is familiar with games of chance, but utterly ignorant of the laws of chance. *It may appear paradoxical to say that chance re- suits right themselves--nay, that there is an absolute certainty that in the long run they will occur as often (in proportion) as their respective chances warrant, and at the same time to assert that it is utterly useless for any gambler to trust to this circumstance. Yet not only is each statement true, but it is of first- rate importance in the study of our subject that the truth of each should be clearly recognized. That the first statement is true, will perhaps not be questioned. The reasoning on which it is based would be too abstruse for these pages; but it has been experimentally verified over and over again. Thus, if a coin be tossed many thousands of times, and the numbers of resulting 'heads' and 'tails' be noted, it is found, not necessarily that these numbers differ from each other by a very small quantity, but that their difference is small compared with either. In mathematical phrase, the two numbers are nearly in a ratio of equality. Again, if a dice be tossed, say, six million times, then, although
|
