Famous for breaking the bank at Monte Carlo roulette!
Charles Deville Wells rose to fame for breaking the bank on Monte Carlo roulette several times during the year 1891, which subsequently earned him the nickname “Monte Carlo Wells”
Wells was then leading the high life and giving lavish receptions aboard a yacht anchored in front of the Monte Carlo Casino.. Wells won at the game, but it was above all his lifestyle as a great lord that drew attention to him.
Promising them huge gains, wealthy people entrusted him with capital to make them grow, and Wells with much more capital than he actually gained from gambling, continued for a time to dazzle the world. Then, unable to repay the huge debts he had incurred, the beautiful yacht was sold and Wells was sentenced to prison.
After this brief evocation, now let's look at the Wells system which deserves attention.
Wells used the following walking chart: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (starting bet), 6, 7, 8, 9 (jump, if this bet is lost).
His first bet was therefore 5 rooms. Ensuite, he reduced his stake by 1 coin after each gain and he increased it by 1 coin after each loss, without ever exceeding the stake limit 9.
We immediately understand that all the ballots brought him back 1/2 winning coin per move played and in addition, if the odds played took a lead of 5 hits on the other, he was earning a surplus of 15 rooms.
We know that sometimes it takes a long time to see a simple chance take 5 one step ahead of the other, but during this time, Wells was constantly earning his 1/2 piece by waiver. More, if luckily the chance played was the one that got ahead, he earned an additional gain of 15 rooms.
On the other hand, if it was the odds contrary to the odds played that took the 5 advances, Wells necessarily lost 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 = 35 coins, less obviously the 1/2 coins won during waivers, before this contrary chance has taken its 5 advances.
Very often, the gains during these run-off periods were sufficient to compensate for the loss of 35 rooms, Unfortunately, if it happened that the loss of 5 hits happen immediately, it was then a dead loss of 35 rooms. Moreover, if, as often happens during a game session, a chance was taking 20 moves ahead of unplayed chance, it was then 35 x 4 = 140 pieces that the system had to fill, and the day was then irretrievably losing.
The fault with Wells’s system is therefore to see the unplayed chance take a large enough lead over the played chance in a relatively short time that does not allow the waiver to lessen the overdraft of 35 coins cost for each 5 late shots.
On the other hand, this system has the enormous advantage of accumulating during the often very long run-off periods, 1/2 piece by move played, plus, the additional gain of 15 coins if the chance played has taken 5 moves ahead of its opposite.
Many players have thought of applying the system backwards by doing the following reasoning: if I play the opposite of Wells, when the odds played take a lead of 5 blows, I will win 35 parts and when it will be the opposite chance that will take these 5 advances, I will only lose 15 rooms.
But these players forgot that by doing so, the ballots would make them lose 1/2 piece by move played, which was the opposite of the main goal sought by Wells.
However, better driven, this system can with certainty give an advantage to a sane player. This is what we are going to see now.
Wells’s system is actually a perfect way to operate as long as the game is stuck in an almost constant equality between wins and losses., but which very quickly becomes catastrophic if the side you are playing lags behind.
It must therefore be applied to a strategy that may not give a mathematical advantage for equal mass, but which has the immense advantage of ensuring almost permanent equality between winning strokes and losing strokes.
This strategy is a bit of what some call the “Law of the Third Party”. We know indeed that on 37 roulette strokes, it appears on average 22 at 26 different numbers, i.e. roughly 1/3 numbers repeat.
If we establish a game on 32 figures of 5 simple chances, we will generally see the output of 20 at 23 figures on 32, always by virtue of this famous law of the third.
By only playing the last move, the fifth forming the figure of 5, we will only play 8 at 12 times per rotation of 32 figures, that is to say 32 x 5 = 160 balls and as the law of the third will appear, we will automatically touch at least 50 % strokes played, and very often a little more.
Wells' system will then find on these last shots figures of 5, a real favorite ground.
Let's first recap the 32 figures of 5 on Black and Red. Here they are:
To practice this game, it will suffice to mark each appearance of a figure of 5 by a point under the corresponding figure, and whenever this figure can recur, that is to say that the 4 first shots will be identical, we will play the fifth move by betting on the repetition of the figure already pointed.
We will then operate the Wells system on these fifth strokes forming the repetition of a figure of 5, and we will thus have hope to obtain a good balance on the shots actually played.
As we said above, a rotation of 32 figures require the observation of 32 x 5 = 160 balls (plus zeros). We will therefore put a table back on the road every 160 balls to take full advantage of the law of a third party.
But since the game is quite slow, since the betting opportunities are 8 at 12 times every 160 balls, we can speed it up without any inconvenience by playing on the 3 simple chance categories, but of course, each of these tables will be completely independent for the application of the Wells system.
In the same spirit, in a future article we will provide details of the method of another famous player who marked the history of casinos: the Greek Zographos.