I have a friend who can count suits (I do not know the particulars, only that its not quite as accurate but is still forbidden). Once he had a broken down car, twenty bucks, and access to a riverboat casino...

He made enough to pay for dinner and a hotel and then left.

I wouldn't endorse a maxim that anytime someone creates a self-interested rule it's always unethical to breach it.

Yes. When they catch you.

No, you still have the opportunity to bet elsewhere before you're caught. Before you count cards, even. You've just decided that your rules are more important than theirs.

Whether or not this is true, you're in a scenario where they have all the power. What's even vaguely surprising about being turfed in that scenario?

I'm not claiming some moral high ground where I follow everyone else's rules. I just know when I'm breaking them.

I wouldn't endorse a maxim that anytime someone creates a self-interested rule it's always unethical to breach it.

Neither would I. Which is why I caveated upthread.

What's even vaguely surprising about being turfed in that scenario?

I don't think it's surprising.

Gotta come down with ita on this. Card games are nothing but a set of arbitrary rules to begin with, aren't they? And are designed to create certain general odds. So I'm not sure why breaking one rule is more ethical than another.

Still, the main reason I wouldn't do it has more to do with consequences than ethics. But playing a game is playing a game - if you want to shift the odds in your favor, fine, but it's still breaking the rules.

So I just poked around on some casino web sites and could not find casino rules or house rules anywhere.

Neither would I. Which is why I caveated upthread.

Not sure which caveat this is-- you mean

However, you've walked into their house to take their money. They get to be insane in defense of their profit. You get to bet elsewhere.

Except you're not changing the odds or even the game at all-- you're changing your betting strategy. You're playing the game by their rules. When I play blackjack, I bet on whether it's been awhile since I've seen an ace, or what cards were just dealt affecting the cards to come-- many people do that. Counting cards does that to more decimal places. Even the MIT strategy was a slightly modified form of that.

ETA:

if you want to shift the odds in your favor, fine, but it's still breaking the rules.

You don't shift the odds in your favor at all, though.

You don't shift the odds in your favor at all, though.

Right, you're just modifying your own allowed behavior (betting) based on your understanding of the odds, which may be better than the average schmoe's.

I have no problem at all with casinos switching decks halfway through, or using multiple decks to confound card counters. What I have a problem with is them ejecting people once they pass a certain arbitrary level of competence at the game while playing within its rules.

No, this caveat, bon:

the rules someone else has every right to set (I mean, we're not talking injury or anything)

You don't shift the odds in your favor at all, though.

Don't you shift (or have the ability to shift) the odds of you winning in your favour? Otherwise why do it?