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.

Ok, I thought you were saying, "If you can count cards, you shouldn't play - it's unethical." Which is why I brought up the ass kicking.

My misinterp.

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?

No; the odds of your winning remains the same, whether you bet $10 or $100. The odds of you winning a lot of money may have changed, but they change every time you decide how much to bet. Counting cards is a strategy for deciding how much to bet, and when -- it just happens to be a more accurate strategy than asking the waiter what he thinks.

It's not like suborning a ballplayer to throw a game; it's like watching a ballplayer wince as he gets out of his zillion-dollar tricycle, and forecasting on that publically-available, but little-noticed, intelligence what the game's outcome will be.

And anyway, how do you realistically stop people from doing it? I always have at least a vague idea of how long it's been since somebody was dealt a face card, and I'm no memorization genius. Similarly, I can look at a hitter in a slump and predict that he'll return to career norms over the long term. Disallowing card-counting -- or any other non-invasive data-gathering strategy -- is like disallowing the rain to fall.