I have in my possesion a Crown & Anchor gambling board that my grandfather carried with him during WW1. My father gave it to me after I started researching several years ago. I was wondering whether it would be better looked after if I presented it to a war museum. Although frowned upon by the authorities at the time it still represents a significant part of the culture of the Tommy when out of the line.

Its made from a piece of canvas with the game symbols painted on, there is a wooden shaker (split) and die. My father had told me that my grandfather had won quite a bit of money during a period of time spent out of the line after being gassed at the Somme.

My grandfather served in the 1/8th battalion of the Worcestershire regiment and they were indeed subjected to a new form of gas which affected the heart and was delivered by artillary shells. The attack took place at La Boiselle on 20th July 1916 while the four companies of the battalion were on a working party. Over 400 soldiers were affected. He returned to action some time later and survived the entire war along with five of his brothers.

Do you think any museums might be interested, its not much to look at but there can't be many examples left?

In so far as - if displayed - it would (possibly) be professionally conserved and properly stored and displayed (depending on the museum).

I'm fairly certain that museums would be interested - I think the best options would be either the Regimental museum or the IWM.

Do you have any written or photographic provenance? Perhaps a letter from your G'father s(or perhaps if he'd his mates to sign the board on demob) or failing that, is your Father still around? Could he write a note that this was the board that his father brough back from the war?
If not, write an account of how you got the board and giving as many details of your G'father as you can (Museums love provenance, if they can get it).

By the bye, if you only have one die, the set is incomplete, there should be three dice

Best wishes

Tom t W

It looks as if Crown & Anchor was a little more than frowned upon by the authorities as, from what W.H.A. Groom wrote in Poor Bloody Infantry: a memoir of the First World War, it appears that it was strictly against regulations:

The main pastime in the evening was 'housey housey', now called Bingo, played in a large roofed area, at one penny per line or two pennies for the full card. It was an army regulation that every evening before the start anyone could take part in the ceremony of cutting cards to be in the group who would take charge that night. The team of six to eight always shared in a rake off benefit as on each round a percentage was deducted for those in charge. The percentage was not fixed and one night when a particularly acquisitive team was in charge with poor pay outs there was almost a riot. Of course this was a monopoly run by a well seasoned group of old sweats and it was probably more than your life was worth to attempt to cut in. This was the only public gambling allowed in the army; all others such as the notorious 'Crown and Anchor' meant severe trouble for those caught.

From Groom's commentary on 'housey housey' it's surprising that this wasn't banned as well. It's an interesting point, but do the Bingo Halls of today have their roots in the troops' Great War entertainment described above, or where such public events held (with the possible exception of small, local fund raising events for church halls, etc.) date back to before that?

It was also illegal to run a crown and anchor game in civilian life. That and pitch and toss were great gambling games for troops which carried on into civvy life.

Yes there is three dice, I don,t have any provenance directly connected with the board but my father is still alive.

Interestingly the game of Crown and Anchor was also known as "Sweats"


I also have several postcards as well that were sent both to and from my Grandfather both from France, Flanders and Italy. One shows a group of officers the other shows a group of Tommies whom I presume were his mates. I have managed to identify one of the group as George Colley who was killed in 1917. The photos can be seen on the "Military Images website" also on the Worcester regiment website.

Indeed in some parts of the world it is still controlled (States of Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda etc) with licensing and limitations on where and when it can be played. At one time in Britain (1930s and 40s)there were criminal (and quiet violent) gangs running floating Crown and Anchor games, often rigged. Back in the 19th century George Borrow produced an account of a murder carried out by an ex soldier who had lost all his money at Crown and Anchor. Therein lay the problem. Unlike Lotto/Bingo/Housey Housey the stakes could be unlimited and it could be rigged. Nevertheless it appears to have been a great favourite in WW1 and it would seem although an offence the military authorities did not spend too much efort over it. An American serving in the British army at the Somme comments
"games are "crown and anchor", which is a dice game, and "pontoon",
which is a card game similar to "twenty-one" or "seven and a half."
Most of these are mildly discouraged by the authorities, "house"
being the exception. But in any _estaminet_ in a billet town you'll
find one or all of them in progress all the time. The winner
usually spends his winnings for beer, so the money all goes the
same way, game or no game."
I suspect that if played in private and between mates a blind eye was turned but if someone was becoming a profesional crown and anchor man theyd apply the full rigour of the regulations.

Hi everyone, you maybe interested in the Housey Housey game pictured. Maybe WW1 but I suspect a little later. Interestingly the picture on the box shows a group of very happy tommies from WW1 period.

Regards
Roger

One question.
How does one 'rig' a game of Crown and Anchor?
There's no "House Wins" area, the punters can bet on any of the faces showing, so 'cogged' dice would just mean a quick way for the organiser to lose money.
The whole essence of C&A is that with 'fair' dice, and, given a good 'patterer' (to keep all options covered) the worst the house can do over a run of games is break even.

Tom t W

Quote:-
The playing cloth and dice are marked in the same manner - the six faces on the die and six squares on cloth are each marked with one of the following:

Crown, Anchor, Spade, Club, Diamond and Heart.

One player is the banker and he invites bets from the other players. The players place their bets on the cloth, on the square or squares they think will win.

The banker then rolls the three dice and pays out as follows:


Money often changes hands.
A symbol on one die - pays evens
A pair - pays twice
Three of a kind - pays three times
The banker takes all bets on losing squares

This means the odds are always in the banker's favour.


I`m sure some mathematician will explain the statistics!

Phil,

That I understand, what I couldn't get was Centurion's comment about 'rigging' a game.

With Crown and Anchor, the odds are always in the favour of the house (what gambling system isn't ), and usually the worst that can happen (with fair dice) is that the house breaks even.

I can't see how a game can be rigged.

Tom t W

Nor can I Tom! Sounds like it didn`t need rigging anyway - the banker was on a winner.

" Facts from Figures", Moroney, a popular explanation of statistics and probability, goes into Crown and Anchor at length. The great appeal of the game is that although the worst the house can do on a single throw is break even, he generally wins. However, he never wins a lot. Unlike baccarat or roulette. There are usually a few winners as well as the house. There used to be big games post WW2 in my home town and great fun could be had by watching the police try to catch them.

I may be misunderstanding the game, but the house can't lose and over a lenghty period must come out ahead.

If we assume the dice are fair and the punters bet all outcomes evenly:

If the 3 dice are different then the three winning squares are repaid their stake and winnings at evens. The house takes in 6 squares of bets and pays out the same amount; 3 squares win, 3 lose.

If 2 dice are the same (A) and one different (B ) the punters who bet A get their stake and twice that as winnings, those who bet B get their stake and winnings. The house takes in 6 units and pays 5, keeping the 1; four squares lose out.

If the 3 dice are the same the winners get their stake and three times that as winnings; the house pays out 4 units and keeps 2; 5 squares lose.

With 3 dice there are 216 possible results, 180 are three different squares, 30 are a pair and a single square, 6 are a triple.

If each square is bet 1 unit per game and 216 games are played there are 1296 units wagered. If the results conform to this prediction* then the house wins 1 unit 30 times and 2 units 6 times, a total of 42 of the 1296 bet, a return of 3.2% which is not that different from a roulette wheel. 96.8% of the wagers are redistributed among players so there will always be winners and losers.

Over a period the house doesn't need to rig the game, the only time it would be worth it is for a one off event. If there are 20 games an hour for three hours the house can take a caning or win big, but over a longer period it should average out.

This comes with the caveat that I have done the figures in a hurry so there may be errors. I'm not a statistician and will be happy if anyone more numerate finds flaws in my method.

* This is too small a number to give an exact match but the principle is there and the higher the number of games the closer the results will conform to the prediction.

The poster didn't ask all this though, if anyone cares to check the original query.

TR

If you mean me, I was responding to Phil B's post at #9.

I'm new here and thought it would be better to keep everything related to Crown and Anchor together. Perhaps you would prefer to split the discussion of the mechanics of the game into a separate thread?

Who was responding to Tom`s quite reasonable comment about fixing the game. We don`t have to stick rigidly to the original question! Digression is not a moddable offence.

Dead easy - weighted dice. Also many (possibly all but one) of the players would be ringers - in cahoots with the man running the game so the only person who would really stake and lose money would be the mug.
Apparently he would be encouraged by winning some money at first which would encourage him to stake more and then stake even more in an attempt to regain subsequent losses.

How do weighted dice work? What would they be weighted towards? I`m no expert in gambling but wouldn`t a weighted dice be detectable before long? And I hate to think what happened to the banker when a crowd of Jock punters discovered the fact. They`d be quite annoyed.

Weighted dice would usually be used in civie rackets (not only C&A) where the gang would outnumber the unaware punter. It would be extremely unhealthy for him to question the dice. A skilled gang would usually be skilled and adept at palming and switching dice as they needed. Weighted dice have been around since ancient times so presumably some use was found for them by the unscrupulous.

You have a set of dice loaded to throw say crowns, you wait until there are no or few bets on that square (or only your partner is betting crowns), swap them in and then swap the unweighted dice back in for the next throw. That is where your man with the patter distracts the punters. Unlike films you don't have to win particular rounds, just some of them over the course of the night; you stay patient and pick your moments. As long as you don't get greedy you should be ok.

Now, who's for a friendly game of internet dice? We'll only use money to keep score . . .

Hello chums,

I've just caught this thread, so thought I'd put in my three penneth.. for what its worth.

As a young RM, my section Cpl was an expert at C&A, and he groomed me on how to play the game. Only one dice is normally rolled for each throw, and each side of the dice has one of the six symbles upon it. There are two ways the game can be played:
1) The 'Bank' covers several of the 'squares' with a small bet, then the punters cover the 'Banks' bet on the same square.. if they wish to. Or, Punters can place their bets on any square that they wish to bet on. Dice is rolled, and the 'Bank' pays the winning square.
2) The only way that the 'Bank' loses, is when everyone bets on the same square, and upon the dice being rolled.. that square settles uppermost.

However, depending upon whether or not there were enough punters, more dice could be introduced (maximum of three played) to spice up the game and make the punters feel they were getting better odds. Contrary to popular belief, it is the 'Bank' who calls which square (normally the most heavily bet) that will be paid out before the roll of the dice, not the other way round. The dice must confirm the 'Banks' call.

My section Cpl used to go ashore (out on the town to all the landlocked!) stone cold sober with only one pounds sterling in his pocket, and come back to camp 'rolling' as if on the high seas during a force ten gale!.

Seph

Hi Lee I was wondering if you could send me the link for the photos you mentioned if its the correct George Colley.Private G COLLEY 240042, 1st/8th Bn., Worcestershire Regiment who died age 33 on 28 April 1917 Son of Mr. and Mrs. W. Colley.
George was my 2x Grt Uncle and I am in touch with his Grandson who would love to see the photo with him in.
Many Thanks
Ian

This was played illegally as a street betting game when I was a kid and in the army later on, when I took a couple of hands. We played straight rules. Roll the 3 dice, pay out on the squares shown by the dice. I was told by a pal in the Royal Navy that they had several variations on the rules. The board and dice were often included in Compendiums of Games and were popular at Xmas. Very strange gift for kids we might think. The ' board ' in the big games was often a cloth which could be stuffed in a pocket as the owner ran off down the street from a police raid. Punters would call round later for their stakes in the hope that he had not taken refuge in a pub or the NAAFI.

I am a Crown & Anchor member with Royal Carribbean Cruise Lines and just read the thread and become very nervous now. Could someone point out a picture of the dice and cloth in order to understand the game which obviously gave name to the club membership. (Sorry, but we continentals simply do not know this game.)

Crown and Anchor.

Thanks for the link -so a total normal game of luck when compared with other such games. What was the reason to discipline soldiers when they played expressively this game in the GW?

Hello Egbert

Sometimes the C&A board is circular, divided up like a six-spoked wheel.

If three different symbols turned up every time, then in the long run all players, including the banker, would break even. The banker's advantage comes when two or three of the dice show the same symbol. (Moroney, Facts from Figures, quoted in an earlier post, explains it in greater detail.)

It was a;so a very popular game in the Royal and Merchant Navies as well, but was usually illegal precisely because, even with fair dice, it was a way of fleecing naive young soldiers/sailors of their pay. The same went for other games of "chance" apart from housey-housey.

In certain cultures, including the Chinese Labour Corps in WW1, gambling was endemic and could quickly lead to violence, sometimes with fatal consequences.

Ron

Thanks Ron, yep I got it. The www also says that the game is popular in Flanders -I guess a left over from the GW?

All,

Does anyone know if forum pal lee enfield did indeed pass on the game to a museum?

Thanks,

Ian.

I could always buy a fewq sets of Crown and Anchor dice here in Australia if any need them!

They come out every Anzac Day with the Two-up pennies.

Cheers,
Hendo