Losing in Gambling

One of the greatest schemes casino gambling has ever known -- is marked in the gambling history.

A system that made thousands for those who devised it, and showed that reason can prevail, even against house odds.

As described by Norman Leigh in his book Thirteen Against a Bank, his system depended on the observation that most people who play at roulette systematically soon go broke, just as those those who play impulsively.

But in Europe, the house advantages in roulette is less than two percent on the even-money bets. Why, then, is it seemingly impossible to win at the wheel?

After a decade or nearly obsessive analysis, Leigh decided that the answer lay in the demands of all roulette systems that the bettor up stakes whenever he or she was that all the losses would be recouped on the first winning bet of the progression.

But the roulette player, as Leigh accurately observed, is not a computer and, especially, is not endowed with the infinite resources of the bank.

Most players simply can't afford to keep doubling their bets until their luck turns.

And even if these systems work for a while, thereby lulling the player into a false sense of security with small wins, he is sure to hit a ruinous losing run sooner or later, and be wiped out.

This had happened to Leigh's own father, who was so broke after losing streak at a French casino that he had to appeal to the British Consul for train fare home.

His son never forgot the humiliation, which perhaps accounts for his adult obsession with breaking the bank at the same French casino.

Once Norman Leigh realized that no roulette player could possibly be bankrolled well enough to allow him to ride out a losing run while doubling his bets, the reason why the house always win at roulette became clear.

But what, wondered Leigh, if the house could be forced to play one of those ruinous systems?

Even if one couldn't literally break the bank (in the sense of winning all the casino's capital), one could certainly win a great deal and do a good deal of damage to the haughty confidence of the casino personnel.

And Leigh thought he saw the way to make the house play as he wanted them to play. He would reverse the usual system. He would reduce his bets when he was losing, and double them only on a winning streak.

That way the losses, though steady, when they came, would quickly mount into major gains. It would be the exact opposite of the runs experienced by the usual system player.

But to sustain a steady stream of small, depressing losses would take a will of steel and the patience of job.

Gambling Leigh's way wasn't gambling at all - it was the slow, dreary, infinitely tedious application of reason to a game that is usually thought of as nothing but amusement.

And there was one other catch: a single person couldn't hope to play long enough to experience the full effects of the mathematical odds.

True, the law of averages said that the losing runs must eventually be balanced by winning runs, but there was no guarantee as to how soon that would happen.

|