been gaining rapidly in education and understanding. The fact that much space in leading periodicals is devoted to these subjects, is in itself _prima facie_ evidence that the people can and will learn, for with all due credit to the editors and publishers, it is certain that the contents of magazines and newspapers are selected in accordance with what the public demands and likes. No one will attempt to deny that a majority of public speculators lose. In a former volume, the present writer undertook to establish by analysis of a large number of public accounts, the fact that 80% of the participators lost money. A number of critics commented on this statement as a body blow to speculation, asserting that the writer had shown that there was “80% against the player.” These writers proceeded to compare this percentage with that existing in games of pure chance, such as roulette, faro, etc., and wound up by pointing out the tremendous drawback to the speculator through percentage against the player. It seems incredible that any sane man should fall into such laughable confusion of ideas. The percentage of players who lose in any game has nothing to do with the percentage against the player. If these critics established anything at all, it was that speculation was not gambling; for it requires only a moment’s reflection to see that in any mechanical gambling game where there is _any_ percentage, no matter how small, in favor of the game, the percentage of players who eventually lose must be 100. This being the case, the gentlemen mentioned were at considerable pains to prove that, as 100 per cent. of the players did not lose, speculation was not a gambling game in the strict sense of the word. That is to say, it could not be correctly compared with any mechanical device where the element of skill was absent. If we consider the matter in a gambling light, the percentage against the speculator can be determined by the proportions of commissions, interest, taxes, etc., to capital invested. Taking commission alone as our basis, we will find that he who purchases a stock at $100 a share and pays one-quarter of one per cent. commission, has a percentage against him of one-quarter of one per cent. If the speculator trades on limited margins the drawback increases accordingly. If we assume that 100 shares of stock are purchased in a bucket-shop on a one point margin, without intention or ability to “re-margin” the transaction, the mechanical percentage is large (25%); if 10 points margin is deposited, the mechanical percentage is reduced to 2½%, etc. In the first instance, $25 or 25% of the $100 involved was lost when the transaction was recorded, without any change in market price. In the second instance, $25 was again lost or 2½% of the $1,000 involved.