Classics have a style and story that are keeping me glued to them for a long time. This is probably the third book that I have finished in one sitting or atleast the same day since I started. Granted these books are short, but its their story line and easy to read style which is keeping me glued. I do not remember the details of ‘The Brothers Karamazov’ (maybe not even the name properly), but I remember enough to state that the styles between the two are so different. While The Brothers Karamazov dragged on with details, and little happening, The Gambler is a more fluid book. The latter provides little to no description of the setting of the scene, but is focusses mostly on the game of Roulette, the mannerisms of the characters, and a shallow reflection of the society back then. Interestingly, little has changed since in the society and the gambler’s attitude. Gamblers continue to try their luck with their last florin in the hope of winning, abandoning all pre-planned strategies in the middle of a nice run, and losing emotional control during that time. This loss of emotional control is when they end up losing it all. He does capture the highs and lows of gambling very well through the character of The Grandmother. I conclude for a variety of reasons. Her wins in her first sitting are typical beginners luck when she had no idea of the game, and just played the odds. She won big. Then she presumed herself to be a genius and the game to be silly, and went back. She may have been partially robbed by the Poles in her following, but she had no idea what she was doing, paid no advice to her well wishers like Astle and the main character. She dismissed them whey they gave her sound rational advice, but the desire to quickly win back her losses shrouded her judgement. She wanted to win back quickly, and continued to lose. In her pursuit of winning back her losses, she lost everything. However, she feigned indifference in public but was a sad person in private. The beauty of the book lies in capturing the inflexion point of a gambler between his winning days and losing days precisely. I feel the way Dostoevsky explains the grandmother’s decision to cancel her plans to travel to Moscow at the end of her winning run is a very typical sentiment in novice, and inexperienced gamblers. Most start to believe their own shit of been a genius, and remove the influence of lady luck. This is talked a lot by Taleb, and also by Maria Konnikova in her book2 . I liked the book because its a more realistic description of a gambler’s mind, and possibly a casino. I can imagine dimwits sitting around with data, and calculations - currently, its displayed as win prediction probability -, so calculate their odds and strategies. But, most always forget to keep calm and stick with the strategy. This is captured in Alexander - the main characters - wins and losses. How he compounds to big sums and then loses it immediately. Something, that is my own story in sports bets, and the reason of my undoing. Its intriguing how the gamblers were aware about their own shortcomings 150 years ago, and modern science has further strengthened their empirical experience with more data. Dostoevsky’s ability to present this unacceptable part of society so gracefully, and dare I say properly, is the reason why the I find modern literature boring and not worth reading. I as a sports betting person can resonate with the Roulette Gambler of 150 years on the emotional side of the endeavour. However, no modern literature can make me feel this way. I am forced to ask why is this so. Is it that artists are more about royalties and contracts nowadays, and less about art? Or was that the case even back because Dostoevsky wrote this book in a flash to ensure that he wouldn’t lose his rights on the royalties of his book? We will never know, but what we do know is, that its an amazing book and a must read for people.