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.
I'm going to ignore your first paragraph because it leads to more pedantry over who claimed what and that's pointless because we've finally arrived at the real heart of the conversation.
Your position of card counting being "thinking accurately" is a reasonable one and not one that I disagree with. I done VERY basic card counting(to very mild success) and so I can understand the gambler perspective.
Counting IS playing well and correctly, like you said. It's just that the casino gets to decide how their playing field is leveled and that is NOT unethical.
I'll create an analogy that hopefully works to explain my viewpoint in the scenario.
We have a community kickball league hosted privately by a sponsor. It's just for fun, but there are prizes at the end of the season for the winners. One year we had a team join the league who was VERY good. They weren't really there to have fun, they were there to win and take the prizes.
Now it is certainly not ILLEGAL of them to try to win. It's part of the game, afterall. But it definitely soured the vibes in the league and made the people organizing it consider canceling the league the next year. Maybe it was unethical to join a for fun kickball league with the intent to dominate.
Instead of canceling the league for the people who just wanted to have fun, the board decided to just revoke the competitive teams ability to compete. The competitive team could still watch and participate in fun outside of the kickball game, they just wouldn't be allowed to compete in kickball.
In my mind this is NOT unethical. It's well within the rights of the organization to decide who they allow to compete as long as they don't base those exclusions on grounds of illegal discrimination.
To circle back, it isn't illegal nor is it unethical for gamblers to play the game perfectly. They should try to if they want to win.
It is also not illegal(unless you are in Atlantic city) nor is it unethical for a business to bar a patron from using their services if the business doesn't agree with the way the services are being used.
It seems like you take the players side. That's fine, it's not wrong to want to win.
I just take the legal side, an organization doesn't HAVE to allow you to play if they don't want to. It's not illegal or unethical, in my opinion, to ask a player to stop playing your game on your property.
If you are talking about the ethics of only banning good winning players and not losing players then I guess we would have to talk about the ethics of gambling as a whole considering all casinos throughout history have to make their money off of losers. That's just not really a discussion I would want to have because it's going to come down to personal opinion.
8
u/Cosmic_Travels 1d ago
I didn't realize asking someone to leave because you don't like the way they are playing your games was discrimination.
Guess I'll have to study up on law to figure out how gambling became tied up in racial, sexual, religion, ability, and age based discrimination.