|
ld not be understood to say that I regard all unfair lotteries as swindles. In the case of lotteries for a charitable purpose I suppose the object is to add gambling excitement to the satisfaction derived from the exercise of charity. The unfairness is understood and permitted; just as, at a fancy fair, excessive prices are charged, change is not returned, and other pleasantries are permitted which would be swindles if practiced in real trading. But in passing I may note that even lotteries of this kind are objectionable. Those who arrange them have no wish to gain money for themselves; and many who buy tickets have no wish to win prizes, and would probably either return any prize they might gain or pay its full value. But it is not so with all who buy tickets; and even a charitable purpose will not justify the mischief done by the encouragement of the gambling spirit of such persons. In nearly all cases
the money gained by such lotteries might, with a little more trouble but at less real cost, be obtained directly from the charitably minded members of the community. To return, however, to my subject.
I have supposed the case of ten persons gambling fairly in such a way that each venture made by the ten results in a single-prize lottery. But as we know, a betting transaction is nearly always arranged between two persons only. I will therefore now suppose only two persons to arrange such a lottery, in this way :-The prize is 10l., as before, and there are ten tickets; one of the players, A, puts, say, 31. in the pool, while the other, B, puts 71.; three tickets are marked as winning tickets; A then draws at random once only; if he draws a marked ticket, he wins the pool; if he draws an unmarked ticket, B takes the pool. This is clearly fair; in fact it is only a modification of the preceding case. A takes the chances of three of the former players, while B takes the chances of the remaining seven. True, there seems to be a distinction. If we divided the former ten players into two sets, one of three, the other of seven, there would not be a single drawing to determine whether the prize should go to the three or to the seven; each of the ten would draw a ticket, all the tickets being thus drawn. Yet in reality the methods are in principle precisely the same. When the ten men have drawn their tickets in the former method, three tickets have been assigned at random to the three men and seven tickets to the other seven; and the chance that the three have won is the
|
