SECT. 13.] Insurance and Gambling. 385 



Each of these adversaries is in exactly the same position as 

 he himself is, and a precisely similar proof might be em 

 ployed to show that each of them must be eventually ruined 

 which is of course a reduction to absurdity. Gambling can 

 only transfer money from one player to another, and there 

 fore none of it can be actually lost. 



13. What really becomes of the money, when they 

 play to extremity, is not difficult to see. First suppose a 

 limited number of players. If they go on long enough, the 

 money will at last all find its way into the pocket of some 

 one of their number. If their fortunes were originally equal, 

 each stands the same chance of being the lucky survivor; 

 in which case we cannot assert, on any numerical grounds, 

 that the prospect of the play is disadvantageous to any one 

 of them. If their fortunes were unequal, the one who had 

 the largest sum to begin with can be shown to have the 

 best chance, according to some assignable law, of being left 

 the final winner; in which case it must be just as advan 

 tageous for him, as it was disadvantageous for his less wealthy 

 competitors. 



When, instead of a limited number of players, we sup 

 pose an unlimited number, each as he is ruined retiring 

 from the table and letting another come in, the results are 

 more complicated, but their general tendency can be readily 

 distinguished. If we supposed that no one retired except 

 when he was ruined, we should have a state of things in 

 which all the old players were growing gradually richer. In 

 this case the prospect before the new comers would steadily 

 grow worse and worse, for their chance of winning against 

 such rich opponents would be exceedingly small. But as 

 this is an unreasonable supposition, we ought rather to 

 assume that not only do the ruined victims retire, but also 

 that those who have gained fortunes of a certain amount 

 v. 25 



