MONTE CARLO GAMBLERS

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 5072, 7 January 1927, Page 3

MONTE CARLO GAMBLERS

BREAKING THE BANK. SOME OF THEIR SYSTEMS. This is ■ the height ett the Monte Carlo season and hundreds off men and women are engaged in the exciting pastime of trying to break the bank. By the “bank” is meant the sum o'f money with which each croupier starts the play. If. this sum —roughly £5OO0 —is lost to one player, then a further sum hasi to be obtained from the manager’s office, and the bank is said to have bee,n “broken.”

Players at, Monte Carlo may be divided into two classes —those who in their attempts on the bank’s; mathematically impregnable position trust to luck, and those who have “systems.”

Just what value these systems have is problematical, but some gamblers have certainly had extraordinary ?f short,-lived success. Captain Bower, who died a few days ago, took to Monte Carlo in 1911 £27,000—a1l that remained out of £1,500,000 —and won £243,000. In 1885 the. Grand Duke Paul, one o'f a class upon whom Monte. Carlo may be said to fatten, won £25,000 within a week ; a mysterious gambler named Darnborough is said to have broken the bank and collected £lOO,OOO from Francois Blanc, the proprietor; and one. man who went into the rooms with 5s in his pocket changed this into WO I ,OOO ! Woolf Joel, the famous financiar, won a small fortune in a'few moments when the red turned up no fewer than twelve times in succession ! But his luck did not, hold, for he was, shot dead a few months later. A Chilean merchant who broke the bank invested all his winnings in firearms for a South American revolution —which 'failed.

All sorts, of systems have been evolved by ingenious gamblers. Granted enough capital, one could double and redouble after losses, and so make certain of victory. . But a limit is placed on the stakes. Pierpont, Morgan said he would certainly play if this maximum were removed. The management politely refused. A Greek merchant avoided the maximum by employing twelve disciplined assistants, oiie or more o'f whom Staked the maximum as required. They broke the bank, but i'.i time Came, when twenty, not twelve, assistants were required. As far back as the middle of the last century a Spaniard named Garcia used a system which repeatedly broke the bank, and when the maximum was raised for; him his winnings approached a quarter of a million pounds ! He left vowing never to play again. He built a church with his gains and kept hi's. vow for three years. Flattered by the attention of the Due de Morny, he played with the duke’s money—lost it, tried to retrieve it with his own, and finished by losing all he had. He then sold his system for five francs to a Viennese lady, who thereby lost her fortune of £lOO,OOO.

Charles Wells, the “Man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo,” pretended to have a system with which he broke the bank ;no fewer than twelve times in one day. On leaving he said he would return and break the bank again within an hour. He succeeded in half an hour. Next year he returned and broke the bank six times before his system failed and the bank took all he had.

Systems based onzfigures must lose in the long run, but Systems based on mechanics may win.

Years ago two Russian brothers, noticed that" owing to the additional rubbing required in the cleaning of one part of the roulette wheel the numbers had a tendency to appear round a group. By backing these numbers they broke the bank until the wheel was changed.

Jagger, an engineer, knowing that it was, impossible to make a machine absolutely true, studied the wheels at Monte Carlo until he had discovered each one’s bias. When he started to play he Khd the infallible system, and repeatedly brioke the bank’, winning £60,000 in four days. They tried to thwart rfim by changing the wheels —and failed. Then they foiled him by using the system now in force, of putting interchangeable parts between the numbers, so that the bias does not exist long enough to be discovered.—H. Meredith, in the, “Daily Mail.”