The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-02-01


IN each case only sufficient number of
trials were made, the failure of the very
event which, considered alone, seemed so re-
markable. could Justly be regarded as more
remarkable by far than its occurrence even
IN single trial. Consider, for example, the
tossing of a single die. If 100000 persons
make each 100 trials, going on at each trial
only so long as six was tossed, there
would be in all COG, 100000 of trials. 1t is
practically certain in about 100000 of
these six" would be tossed at the first trial;
i'll about II, 666 667 of these six would be
tossed a second time; i'll about 2,777,TS of
these it would be tossed third time; in
about 462, 963 of these a fourth time; in
about n, 100 of these fifth time; in about
l., 500 of these a sixth time; i'll about 2.l43
of these a seventh time: in about 357 of
these an eighth time; in about go of these
ninth time; and in about 10 of these tenth
time
1t would be a very strange and unusual
thing if up to the ninth set of trials these
numbers were not represented very closely,
for it would imply that in a great number
of tossings six" had not appeared its duly
proportionate number of times, viz, IN
about one-sixth the number of trials. Even
In the set of ten trials, about sixty in num-
Der, it would be very strange thing if no
six appeared at all. Yet if only enc
six" appeared in all those trials, the full
number of consecutive ''SiXes" which, con-
sldered alone, seems SO remarkable, would
have appeared If we increase the number
of trials hundred fold, as we can quite
readily imagine done by allowing the
5000, 900 to make each hundred trials on
each of a hundred consecutive evenings.
we increase the number of ninth trials
to about 5000 Now consider what a sur
prising thing it would seem if among about
$500 tossings not a single ''six" appeared;
in other words how surprising it would he
if the very event which on the other view
appears so amazing as to be judged utterly
impossible, did not occur once at least, as
matter of fact it would probably occur
about thousand times. Yet the person to
whom these long series Of sykes" occurred
could no more be regarded as lucky, in the
sense than they would be more likely than
others to toss ''sixes" in subsequent trials,
than the winner of the chief prize, and in
that great national scandal, the Louisiana
lottery, would be lucky in the sense of being
more likely to win the great prize at the
next trial.
But it may be said in each case the man
was lucky, and we the believers in luck
would do well to trust n his good fortune
after he had thus shown that he was a lucky
man. This may be said, but what would be
the actual conduct of the very persons who
were thus confident in such lucky menl Is
there any gambler on the face of the earth
who, if he knew that the last winner of the
chief Louisiana prize had drawn a partcu-
lar number for the next trial, would back
that number? On the contrary, of all num-
bers that would be the one he would avoid
most carefully. ''Whoever heard he would
ask, of the great prize being won twice run
ming by the same man! Lightning does not
strike twice in the same place
We must choose some other
number" Yet the winner of
the last great prize has just the same chance
of winning the next prize as any other ii ,ket
buyer; in other words, he has chance
worth, theoretically, a little more than half
what he has paid for his ticket, and practi-
cally worth aLout fourth of that price. If
there were any truth in the doctrines of
luck, his chance of winning a great prize
would be greater than that of any other
ticket holder, since his luck had been proved
by crucial test to be good, while of the
luck of the rest nothing would presumably
be known. Yet, put to the tes5, the believer
in luck shows that his faith is weaN, since he
puts more faith I'm this case) in the doctrine
that luck must change than in what he sup
poses to be his faith, the doctrine that luck
can be trusted to continue.
In lotteries and kindred forms OF
gambling, men reject trusts in other folks
luck, and believe instead in cOincid noes
and dreams They find the number on
which they finally stake their faith Ill all
manner of absurd and unmeaning ways.
All the tens of thousands of ticket holders
in great lottery have selected their mum
Der in some way satisfactory to themselves,
about which we hear nothing when the
result is failure, as in ninety nine cases
out of 100 it necessarily is But when the
result chances to be a success as in a small
proportion of cases it must be, the whole
story is gravely related in the papers as
though the number actually bringing the
prize had been determined beforehand by
some scientific process of reasoning, and
success assured by the exercise of good
Judgment or ingenuity.
Yet how prepOSterOuS such stories invari-
ably are and what an insult it is to men of
sense to expect them to accept such mani
ties as worth considering IN n of X Y
H. i" we are gravely told, was fortunate in
securing the great prize by his happy hit in
selecting the winning number 1870, - as in
Dictated 10y the year of his mothers birth,
1901, followed by her age, -, at her death"
" haeever number had been drawn we may
be sure that a similar story would have
been forthcoming, aud a story perfectly
true, too, only absolutely unmeanng. Yet
thousands of foolish folks conclude that the |
winning number in every lottery is always
determined III some such way--the real fact !
being that the winning number in any fair |
lottery is any whatever, but that since |
every one who ventures the price of a ticket |
is sure to hit upon some casual combination |
having as much connection with the lottery |
as the pegs in his boots with the stars in the |
great bear, the number of the winning |
ticket cannot but correspond with one or
other of these casual combinations.
Yet it is idle to inveigh against the folly |
of such fancies and supersttons. They |
have existed in all ages and among all races
from time immortal Carrying in them |
selves their own contradiction, they also |
carry in themselves what to believers in |
luck appears their full confirmation For |
he does not observe that the ideas about |
luck which run through his mind are con-
Trajectory, and in their Standardization |
provide for every event. When success !
comes to him by following one idea about |
luck, his faith in luck Is confirmed; but !
when failure arrives he is not a whit less |
satisfied that he holds the true faith about |
luck. for he has another doctrine about that |
event also.
Resolved into its component factors the !
common belief about luck involves these !
two doctrines: First, luck lasts long; sec
ond, luck cannot last forever. The event OF |
any trial is bound to correspond with one or
other doctrine; and since no one can guess |
beforehand Just how long luck will last, or |
when the luck which has lasted long will |
change, every venture is pure guess-work |
with the believer in luck, and there is no GER
I'M tho ras,tlts-aYcent this that vhau |