THE NEED OF A LIMIT.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4406, 16 February 1883, Page 4

THE NEED OF A LIMIT.

Tbe wholesome practice of limiting the "beta mad6~on~a"gamo' of poker prevails yery-generally in all reputable circles Among the professional gamblers of the West, where money-making and not amusement is the object of the game, no limit is recognised, and the innocent 1 cotton planter who Bits down at a pokertable on board a Mississippi steamer and bets lOdol, and 20dol. on what he believes ,to } be a good hand may find himself "raised out of his boots" by an op.-, ponent who increases the bet to l.OOOdoi. The advantages of a limit in poker are so, Opifergally;, conceded by all fair-.mind.ed inch that it" is strange that the'Uimit has not been generally, introduced, into, ecclesiastical games. That there -is. practically no limit recognised, im such; Bames is'well known, but it is to be hoped jat the recent action of the Baptist con-, gregatioh of London', Ontario, will have itreffect in calling'the attention of zealous" Baptists and members of other sects to the wisdom and propriety of a limit. " * The London Baptists held a fair a few days aeo, and among the schemes for bring-, ing money into the treasury of the fair was that of presenting a bed-quilt to the young Baptist lady who should receive the largest number of votes. The "ante" required from each voter, was 50.cents, and it was evident from the first that the " pot "— that is to say, the bed-quilt—would be won either by Miss Goodacre or Miss Porte. The voting proceeded quietly for some time until it became apparent that Miss Porte was decidedly ahead. Miss Goodacre was engaged to be married to a Mr Fox, and the latter, having put all his available cash into votes at 50 cents each, was determined that his bethrothed should win'the bed-quilt that he threw his watch on the table and demanded that, as it . warworn lOOdol., it should be counted as an equivalent for two hundred votes. This would have secured the bedquilt for Miss Goodacre bad not Miss Porte also possessed a lover of great; devotion and pluck in the person of Mr Stanley, who, having 200dol. in his pocket, instantly " saw" Mr Fox's one-hundred-dollar watch and " went lOOdol. better." The excitement had now.become intense, for it was believed that Mr Pox would not be " bluffed " by his opponent's 200dol. This belief was justified in a most striking way... Without a moment's hesitation Mr Fox bot—that is to,say, contributed—his house and lot, worth lOOOdol, and Mr ; Stanley, being utterly unable either to " raise" or " call" him, passed out, and the bed-quilt was adjudged to Miss Goodacre. The discHssion" which followed between the respective friends of the two bold players was.so heated and no destructive of creckery and religious harmony tbat a painful scandal was created, and the Baptist congregation, after a full investigation, returned the watch and house to Mr Fox and tbe 200dol. to Mr Stanley, and directed the bed quilt to be given to Miss Porte. -' ••

The ostensible reason for this decision was that there had been a fifty-cent limit and that no player had a right to bet—or in other words, contribute—more than one fifty cent vote.at a. time. Bat it-is not denied that, in spite of the so-called limit, ever player , was permitted • to cast as many votes as he paid for at the rate of 50 cents each. Now the purpose of a limit in any game is to restrain the propensity of bold players to ." freeze out" the more timid ones, and.this cannot be done unless the limit' is strictly maintained. For example, when poker is played with a onedollar' limit, the limit would be a hollow mockery were a player to be permitted to bet 5&ol. or lOdol. at a time. How can the London Baptists maintain tbat there was a limit in their game when any man could stake as many votes at a time as he could pay for ?- J If there was no limit, as was evidently the case,, on what ground was Mr Fox compelled to resume his house and watch and Mr Stanley compelled to take back hi3.200d01. ? There is no pretence that the game was played unfairly, and no player expressed the least desire to have his money returned. ■ It may be that the Baptists had doubts as to the exact value of Mr Fox's watch and house, but that would not explain their refusal to accept Mr Stanley's 200dol. The truth of the matter' seems to, be that the watch and house and 200dol. were returned simply in order to put an end to the scandal which the affair had created, and tbe act must be considered a weak and cowardly one. The necessity of having a limit and adhering strictly to it in ecclesiastical games is made clearer than ever by the great Baptist bed«quilt game. Let us hope that hereafter no such game will be played without* a limit and that in no circumstances will the limit be set aside. Were a few veteran poker-players to be em> ployed to. take charge of church fairs, there is little danger" that any game would be played in an unfair or scandalous manner, and all; occasion for scandal would be avoided. —New York Times.