Ha! My friend can count 5 decks in his head...and figure very long odds...proving an bent toward mathy things...and he's a great singer/songwriter...but I doubt he could engineer anything.

While I understand about the ethical issues between the implicit rules of the house and the breaking of same through card counting...the entire universe of gambling seems to be void of ethical high ground.

No high ground, just the pits. Nothing about it seems 'fair' to me, and yet, if people want to participate, knowing the inherent imbalance, then I don't guess I can argue.

The part that bothers me is all the associated stuff. My friend, a basically good guy, has gotten 'mixed up' (voluntarily, to be sure) in a lot of seamy things unrelated to his savant ability to keep track of a zillion cards in his head. The sort of things that got him chased out of Russia by the mob, detained by Asian police, and landed in a half-way house/jail where his cellmate got shot in the ass one night. Seriously, the actual 'playing' of the games seems inconsequential in the overall world of gambling.

Maybe ita's just trying to save us from being shot in the ass....

I do sound quite Manish, don't I? But it's the same thing as our community rules. Someone can swoop in from nowhere and state that they didn't know them, they didn't make them, and most importantly they don't care about them and won't follow them.

And then we boot them.

Which makes us The Man. Community is our motivation, and profit is the motivation for the casinos.

They're an optional part of my life, and I don't for a second dream they're looking out for me. As everything is laid out on paper, I think they have as much ethical claim as anyone else in business. It just plays out differently.

I wouldn't necessarily call acting boorish here unethical per se. But now I think we're really getting into personal ethical standards.

I asked Bob, if in applying the categorical imperative one formulates the maxim "if everyone counted cards..." or "if everyone who could count cards counted cards..." I actually think the former maxim is still endorseable, because the odds still don't change. If betting is more accurate the casino just changes the prize to account for it. I think.

I think we're really getting into personal ethical standards.

My personal ethics are in adopting the rules of the store/community/country when I cross over into it. So personal, yet impersonal.

The line I have a hard time articulating is when it's worth breaking the rule, or trying to change it. Pretty much nothing in gambling is going to make me need to stick it to the man. I have no level of ownership in either a casino or gambling as a whole. Gets much shadier when it comes to countries and communities. But it's easy to do for casinos.

I actually think the former maxim is still endorseable

And impossible.

I do sound quite Manish, don't I? But it's the same thing as our community rules. Someone can swoop in from nowhere and state that they didn't know them, they didn't make them, and most importantly they don't care about them and won't follow them.

And then we boot them.

There's still the shooting in the ass option.

I want someone to count cards, win millions, and then give it all to me. With which I will buy a very large ventilation fan.

Cat has special new expensive, kidney-and-liver-preserving catfood. And OH MY GOD, so far it makes his poop and farts stinkier. I may need a gas mask.

I have taken a bath and am now wearing my oh-so-snuggly, sock-monkey-design flannel pajamas. The BF is on his way home form a night in Palm Springs looking at 2007 cars and he is going to stop and pick up dinner of some sort. Life, she is good.

It is probably a good thing that I don't have the brain configuration to count cards because I would have to use it. I think. It is a dilemma I won't have to confront in this lifetime.

You know, before, when I was startled at the bank Chris Rock was making for Rush Hour 3? I take it back. I have no startle left over after learning that Jennifer Aniston makes $9M a picture.