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?

Why teach Krav when you can just beat the shit out of random stranger on the street and be done with it?

You teach cause you enjoy, somep people play cause they like to, ability to count or no. And playing = free drinks.

No, you don't change the way the cards are dealt at all. You guess when to start betting big. And even then you can lose big. It's the same game, you just have a better idea of what's left to be played.

you don't change the way the cards are dealt at all

I'm not claiming you do. I'm not talking about the odds of what's dealt. I'm talking about the odds of you winning. Those, surely, are altered. Isn't that what betting strategies are for?

Why teach Krav when you can just beat the shit out of random stranger on the street and be done with it?

I don't understand. Teaching krav and beating people up aren't really related. Training in krav and beating people up are more analogous, but I still don't get how that'd relate to the card counting discussion.

I meant it as "Just cause you can, doesn't mean you will." Just because somebody can count them, it shouldn't prevent them from playing.

Just because somebody can count them, it shouldn't prevent them from playing.

Where did I contradict that point of view?

As far as I'm concerned, the ethical thing to do in a situation like this is to not play -- breaking the rules someone else has every right to set (I mean, we're not talking injury or anything) isn't ethical in my book.

I thought this was?

If not, I misread and I apologize.

Are you saying that being able to count cards means you have to count cards? If you're going to play and count cards, I think it's unethical. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. I'm just saying it's unethical.

To escalate things and make them kravvier -- if I can't spar at 20% intensity, and the class involves sparring at 20% intensity, my enjoyment of sparring at my 50% intensity in no way trumps the instructor's decision to sit me down until (if ever) I learn to lighten up. My inability to spar at less than 50% shouldn't trump it either.

Even if no one is getting hurt.