The Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo: Charles Deville Wells’ Legendary Wins

Imagine winning so much money that the casino goes broke. It is something unfathomable nowadays, but in the past, there were rare times when a guest actually ended up winning all the casino’s money. The most notable of these was Charles Wells, a Briton who broke the bank of Monte Carlo in 1891 playing Roulette.

We don’t know much about how it happened. In fact, the news and documents of the time are quite suspiciously vague about the actual happenings. But we do know that Charles Wells won an extraordinary sum of money, and that he inspired all kinds of legends and conspiracies.

A known fraudster both before and after breaking the bank, it’s difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt. In that he may have won through pure blind luck, but that is highly unlikely. And if he did have, what he claimed was an “infallible system”, it was most likely illegal or shady. Nevertheless, we will explore a few different angles and theories, so you can decide whether you think he outsmarted the odds fairly, or cheated the system.

Who Was Charles Deville Wells

Charles Wells is a pretty mysterious figure, and besides his gambling and financial schemes, not much is known about him. Wells was trained as an engineer and already had a few dodgy schemes before breaking the bank at Monte Carlo Casino. Working as an engineer at the docks of Marseille in the 1860s, he claimed to have created a device to regulate the propeller speed on ships, which he sold for around 5,000 francs (£17,500 today). He then moved to Paris, where he launched a crowdfunding campaign to make a new railway track at Pas des Calais. After collecting the money, Wells disappeared and relocated to Britain.

Breaking the Bank at Monte Carlo

The Monte Carlo Casino was first proposed by Princess Caroline back in the 1850s. While there were several attempts to open Monégasque casinos, the Monte Carlo Casino as we know it today was finally opened in 1865. In 1873, Joseph Jagger drew huge publicity for being the “man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo”. Recognising one of the biases on the Roulette wheel, Jagger, a prominent textile industry businessman, won over 2 million francs. By modern standards, that is around £7.5 million.

Just under 20 years later, Charles Wells came to Monaco to test his luck at the famous Monte Carlo Casino. Wells entered the casino in June of 1891. Back then, the casino would receive a daily 100,000 francs to top up the cash reserve. This amount was known as the bank. Now, the exact amount of money Charles Wells brought to play with, the number of days he spent at the casino, and how much we won are a bit blurry. Different accounts have different facts, and the information varies greatly. But here is a broad outline of how Wells did it.

Wells spent anywhere from 5 days up to 11 days at the Monte Carlo Casino. Most sources state he had a bankroll of 4,000 francs (around £20-25k) to play with. Wells mainly played Roulette, though he also played Trente et Quarante (a popular card game at the time), but to a lesser extent. He is reputed to have played in bursts, rather than continuous gameplay, and in one session won 23 out of 30 consecutive spins. Other reports suggest this was 26 from 30. When Wells was done, he walked away with over 1 million francs, or the equivalent of £4 to £5 million today.

What Happened Next

Wells left the casino with his money and was not prosecuted or convicted for cheating. Theories arose about how his exploits, but most of the newspapers at the time dismissed his wins as publicity stunts. Funnily enough, Wells came back to the casino later that year and the following year, but never managed to pull off the same trick. In later life, he was charged for his crime related to selling dodgy patent schemes.

After serving six years in prison, he went to Paris and launched a Ponzi scheme, well before Charles Ponzi made his own infamous mark a decade later, and then vanished. Historians still speculate over the legend of Charles Wells. Few details exist about his life beyond his schemes and gambling exploits.

How Charles Wells Beat the Roulette Wheel

Winning 20+ from 30 consecutive spins is nearly impossible in roulette. Even if you were to take 1:1 bets, such as red/black, high/low or even/odds, the odds are around 4.8%. But we don’t know what types of roulette bets Wells placed, and the chances are he probably bet more aggressively on wagers with higher payouts. Winning 20 from 30 straight up bets (single numbers) is basically a 1 in a septillion chance (1,000,000 and add 21 more zeros).

Our guess is, he probably bet on a specific portion of the wheel. For instance, placing straight bets on 4+ adjacent segments. He probably had a way of predicting where the ball would land, and then covered the “hottest area”. In gambler’s terms, these are the “hot numbers” that the roulette ball seems to fall on more times than other numbers.

Compromised Wheel Theory

The casino already had a scandal 20 years before with Jagger, so they probably refurbished or changed their tables for new ones to take out any wheel bias. But back then, they didn’t have the technology to finely examine every segment and the minute physical parameters of wheels. It is very possible that the wheel was biased, and Wells simply observed the results and looked for the “hot” portions of a wheel.

The trick here is that you have to look at the wheel, and not the paytable. The paytables back then most likely listed the numbers in chronological order, and not their placement on the wheel. You have to observe the regions on the wheel, such as red 34, black 6, red 27, and black 13, which are adjacent.

But Wells can’t have been the only person to notice a ball landing more often on certain quadrants of the wheel. Surely if there was such a blatant bias, the other guests would also notice. And it can’t have been too small a segment, as Wells won over 20 rounds in 30 spins.

Watching The Dealer’s Throw

Another tactic is waiting for the dealer to release the ball, and catching the exact segment of the wheel that is under the dealer’s hand at the point they release the ball. These dealers are trained to spin the wheel and throw the ball in a mechanical motion. After conducting hundreds of rounds of roulette, surely they will spin and throw by routine. The speed of both the wheel and the ball will not change with each round, as the dealers keep the games running smoothly.

If Wells timed how long the ball spun and tracked its position relative to the point of release, he could predict where each spin might land. But he couldn’t make that calculation unless the croupier had already released the ball. So right after the dealer throws the ball, while the table is still taking bets, he would have been able to quickly put in his wagers.

Players nowadays have used this tactic by employing computer software and lasers to calculate where the ball will land. Precise timers and technology that is way beyond what Wells could have sourced at the time. In truth, there is a very small possibility Wells could have used this method. Unless he had a very good eye to track the ball movements and precise timing. Or, if the roulette wheels were spun a lot slower back then. Otherwise, it would be nearly impossible.

Collusion Theory

Our most likely guess is that Wells was not alone in his endeavors. He may have colluded with a dealer, who could then try to fix the roulette outcomes to suit Wells. The most talented dealers could, theoretically, aim for certain regions or segments on the table. Of course, they will need to be highly skilled and be extremely familiar with the table. And if the table has any biases, they could use these to help guide the balls into certain segments.

The dealer may have purposely thrown the ball a little slower, or tried to catch a precise segment to release the ball onto the wheel. And in doing so, the house edge is diminished as the probabilities are all changed. If Wells could get a dealer on his side, there is a good chance he could win round after round. And they could agree to change the system every few rounds to keep the other guests from realising the scam.

Was it a Betting System All Along?

Gamblers develop many biases, most of which distort the facts. Say the ball lands on red 10 times in a row. Some people will think the red numbers are “hot” or that they can make more money betting on red. On the other hand, some gamblers may think the ball must fall more on black, to balance out the results and make them reflect the true probability. Both are gambler’s fallacies.

Gambler’s superstitions and fallacies can often blur the facts and change the way we observe what really happens. Optimism bias, for instance, is when we overestimate the odds on a favorite, or “less risky” wager.

For example, a baseball team wins 15 consecutive games. We look at that and think, they are on fire and are unbeatable. And not to look back at their results and see how much luck was needed to get there. We tend to also big up the larger wins, and downplay losses. It is all part of the social effect on gambling, as we want to believe that a person can beat the house. So maybe the details about Wells’ feat are a little blurred.

Perhaps he just used a strategic betting system and dazzled the spectators beyond belief.

The Betting System

How could this be done? Well, in any number of ways. If he used the Martingale System and stuck to 1:1 bets, it may have puzzled the viewers that he could still make a profit even after losing a few rounds in a row. Just think about it. Say Wells played 5 rounds, losing 3 in a row, but won the 4th. The money he would make back covers all his losses, and thus, a spectator may erroneously think he won the round.

Or, he covered more segments on the roulette wheel and bet aggressively, creating an illusion that he was winning big. But in actual fact he was staking big sums of money and on relatively safer wagers.

If he was using some kind of system, such as flat betting, martingale, or Labouchere, it could explain how Wells could never replicate his big feat. After all, when he came back later that year he lost big money. Should Wells really have been betting 1:1 wagers, the chances of him winning 20 out of 30 rounds are about 4.8%. That is, just under the chance of hitting a split bet in roulette (5.55%). So, in theory, if he had a little positive variance, and stuck to a system, there is quite a good possibility he was playing fair. We say that with lots of ifs and buts.

Concluding the Man Who Broke the Bank at Monte Carlo

Wells’ Monte Carlo Casino story continues to baffle gamblers and historians alike. Before anyone starts thinking whether it can be done again, we would warn you. In modern casinos, you can’t pull off such a feat for numerous reasons.

1. There is no bias in real tables or casino games that are powered by RNGs
2. If you win too much, chances are the casino would close the table or even ask you to leave
3. Casinos have very tight security. They can catch all kinds of cheating schemes and kick you out or ban you

However, betting systems and strategies are not banned by casinos, and gamblers can still hope to hit the big time. Yet with the use of RNGs and game integrity compliance, you won’t run into any rigged tables or biased games. It all boils down to good old fashioned luck. And remember to play responsibly, not spending more money than you can afford to lose.