The Gaming Table - Volume 2 by Andrew Steinmetz
page 234 of 328 (71%)
page 234 of 328 (71%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
The bold player who was lucky and adventurous, and could push on
his couch with a considerable stake to sept-et-le-va, quinze- et-le-va, trente-et-le-va, &c., must in a wonderful manner have multiplied his couch, or first stake; but this was seldom done; and the loss of the players, by the very nature of the game, invariably exceeded that of the bank; in fact, this game was altogether in favour of the bank; and yet it is evident that--in spite of this obvious conviction--the game must have been one of the most tempting and fascinating that was ever invented. Our English adventurers made this game very different to what it was in France, for there, by royal edict, the public at large were not allowed to play at more than a franc or ten-penny bank,--and the losses or gains could not bring desolation to a family; but in England our punters could do as they liked-- staking from one guinea to one hundred guineas and more, upon a card, 'as was often seen at court,' says the old author, my informant. When the couch was alpieued, parolied, to sept- et-le-va, quinze-et-le-va, trente-et-le-va, &c., the punter's gains were prodigious, miraculous; and if fortune befriended him so as to bring his stake to soissante-et-le-va, he was very likely to break the bank, by gaining a sum which no talliere could pay after such tremendous multiplication. But this rarely happened. The general advantage was with the bank--as must be quite evident from the explanation of the game--besides the standing rule that no two cards of the same sort turning up could win for the players; the second always won for the bank. In addition to this there were other 'privileges' which operated vastly in favour of the banker. |
|