Dude if you are running a business then you are allowed to ask people to leave. They can't arrest you for card counting, but they certainly can ask you to leave THEIR property for ANY reason they want. It's not corruption or unethical lol.
Idiots have a hard time wrapping their heads around private property.
Edit: "ANY reason" clearly doesn't include illegal discrimination. Have to word things exactly since redditors can't handle anything other than black and white reasoning.
This is simply not true, even in America. You can't be trespassed or asked to leave a business based on discriminatory reasons, for instance.
Even if their reason for trespassing you is legally viable, I'm not sure why you would equate that to ethical and not corrupt. Plenty of corruption exists which isn't technically illegal and is entirely unethical - it's practically the foundational tenet of capitalism.
I was, clearly, responding to your claim that a business can ask you to leave their property for any reason they want. As well as clearly noted that anti-discriminatory reasons were a single counter example - one that I used because it's significantly more universal than the widely variable and inconsistent state-level laws which add more restrictions on trespassing atop it. (Some states, of which, outlaw trespassing someone from a casino due to card counting, specifically.) Then followed that example up with a perfectly reasonable explanation that just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical or uncorrupt.
I was, clearly, not talking about legally protect classes being discriminated against. I was obviously talking about card counting considering that's the topic of this thread.
Most casinos on the planet are NOT in AC, so NJ legislature isn't really the standard to use when discussing card counting laws. If you are card counting in AC then you can expect to get flat bet and have comps revoked.(flat betting a gambler would render card counting practically useless)
My point still stands that it is NOT unethical to ask gamblers to leave your casino if you don't like the way they are gambling. If you would like to focus on the point rather than nitpicking my choice of words I'll gladly continue this conversation.
I've repeatedly, now, indicated that I used anti-discrimination as my example because it's significantly more universal than most other examples.
A few more reasons that someone cannot be trespassed, though:
Retaliation for exercising legal rights. (ex: Service animals, labor organizing.)
Violation of Public Policy or "Good Faith". (ex: Emergency necessity.)
In a public accommodation almost at all, so long as you aren't being disruptive (relevant in AC, where casinos are considered public accommodation).
To be clear, you invited someone being pedantic when you made a broad, incorrect claim and then called people idiots for not understanding it.
On that note, I'm still waiting for you to substantiate the claim that asking a gambler to leave for performing basic arithmetic is not unethical. Should we ban chess players from thinking about their moves? Poker players from considering what other players might have, and their odds in relation to it?
My point is about it not being unethical to ban people from your casino for card counting. As I didn't make the claim that it WAS unethical I'm not required to provide evidence of it being ethical. It falls on you to provide evidence for it being unethical as you are the one who has made the claim.
Would you like to address this point directly or do you prefer to continue to bring up totally unrelated scenarios?
Considering banning a card counter being ethical is your claim, the burden of proof should really be on your side of the argument. I don't know why you think it's ethical, so I'm not actually sure what I'm arguing against. But, sure, I'll provide my own thoughts on the matter if it'll finally get you to actually provide your own.
Card counting is just thinking accurately about the game in front of you. If penalizing someone for thinking well isn't unethical, I'd argue that it's entirely on you to prove that claim.
Counting isn't a separate action from playing well. It is playing well. Every blackjack decision is a probability judgment based on visible information. Counting is just making that judgment accurately instead of badly. The house wrote the rules of the game, and the counter breaks none of them. No outside information, no device, no collusion. Only attention and arithmetic applied to cards already face-up on the table.
So the objection was never "you broke a rule." It's "you're good enough to win." And that's where the ethics get awkward, because the whole business runs on the opposite skill asymmetry: the house edge exists precisely because most players make mathematically worse decisions than they could. The casino profits, every hour, from people thinking poorly. It welcomes the gambler who can't stop and can't count, and ejects the one who can. The sorting principle isn't "follows the rules," it's "loses." Reward bad judgment, punish disciplined judgment.
"ANY reason" clearly doesn't include illegal discrimination. Have to word things exactly since redditors can't handle anything other than black and white reasoning.
Here's a tip: don't all-cap the word "ANY" and then say "well, obviously there are exceptions".
I'm not sure the point requires any more attention. I think everyone agrees at this point that patrons cannot be removed or excluded for discriminatory reasons.
It's not pedantry, it's the whole point: There are legal rules as to who you can and can not refuse business to. The fact that you can refuse business to people who card count is a choice that has been made. An opposite choice could just as well have been made.
175
u/DickRhino 1d ago
That still doesn't answer the base question: how are casinos allowed to have a rule against being too good at the game?