The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-11-07

the draw" is quite true, and any modif-
cation that encourages the player to draw,
instead OF passing out, is in the direction
oil enhancing the interest OF the game, and
hence should be encouraged.
The gamblers have figured out the prob
abilities and by their strict observ n o
play game so thoroughly mechal ic
and in which there is so little chance Tor
speculation that ii is OF no interest TO the
business men who choose to while away
an hour in the enjoyment incident to the
pleasant surprise OF starting with ve.y
small and ending with very large hama,
to the disgust of his opponent and to his
own profit, or vice versa.
The game in question is the very anti
pode OF the gamblers game, and is in
every way qualified as an amateur game,
in this, that the play can be stopped mt
reasonable hour and the one agreed up
in the commencement. Each player Q
limited as 20 his losses, and in turn cannot
win to exceed the aggregate of the posi-
BILE losings OF his companions The sue
cossiul player who has made the winning
can be as conservative rs he likes, and the
loser can take all the chances of recovery
that his judgment warrants, and in the
end every player has the consolation OF
knowing that no comrade has lost moro
than he can afford to lose, and that no O. Q
has won sufficiently large amount ~
make him feel like blackleg.
SPECIMEN GAMES.
The following example is from an actual
game in which five players participated:
The limit OF the evenings play was SIC;
each player deposited that amount, and
consequently the total was $50. At the
end Of the game A was winner $50, b
loser $50, c winner SIS, ID winner $40 and
+ loser SIS. A returned $40 OF his chips
to the banker and received the $40 orig
inally deposited by him. had no CHRIS
and owed the banker $40. G returned SO
Of his chips to the banker and wi,hdrr"'
the SO originally deposited. ID r,turn
$40 OF his chips and received $40. + hau
no chips and had due hill in the bank
or was indebted to it for -. The due
bills were all destroyed. 4 had remain.
ing in front of him $40 worth OF chips and
& So worth. b and T. were losers, and
hence had no claim to any share OF the
profits A and d had each Withdrawn from
the original amount, so that there was re-
naming $50, A and { divided the pot in
proportion TO their respective winnings,
that is, 10 to 5 or . TO |. In other VIZ is,
\ received Sl2.33 and G received $685..
Another game was closed up on the fol-
lowing basis: The limit was -; there
were six players, which we will designate
by letters from \ to inclusive; at the APP
pointed time for the game to close, A was
loser $40; B winner so; & winner SIS; u
winner $3.50; T. loser S25, and I loser
800; the losings were, Of couise, in adj.
dition to the original stakes b returned
FROM his $50 worth OF chips to the bank
and received his original deposit, which
reduced his chips to SIS; G returned the
amount necessary and received his orig
inal deposit, which reduced his chips to
$40; ID returned his $3.50 worth of chips
aud received half OF his deposit Of s..
The original pool was $50; the withdrawal
OF s. by B, like amount 10y G and half
the amount by ID, LEFT in the pool the orig
inal amount less $3.50, or SlajO. OF that
sum b is entitled 10 1925 and G. to 1925,
or the one So and the other to 20, or b to
$1,000 and & TO 81.
In every house where the dining.room
table is used on Saturday night, the arti-
Gle should be pasted on the under side OF
the extra leaf