3 ms·
The irony here is it's only illegal to beat the games because the casinos figured out how to rig the democratic process to get favorable laws passed. If we put
by cityhall 10y ago
The irony here is it's only illegal to beat the games because the casinos figured out how to rig the democratic process to get favorable laws passed. If we put it to a vote, what would the public think was more unethical, using a mechanical device to count cards or using lobbyists to make sure you can't lose?
- huac 10y agoIf a casino could lose money, you'd either have only small, locals casinos, or none at all. Votes are rarely referendums on ethics. In this case we'd (and by we, I mean Nevada residents) compare two scenarios: a world without the big Vegas casinos (and their tax revenue, their employees, the good stuff), or a somewhat rigged world with the casinos.
- gech 10y agoWhat a defeated view. Hopefully one day those Nevada residents may see a horizon beyond the sprawling parking lot of a casino.
- huac 10y agoIf there is an industry that can profitably offer better jobs/economic incentives to Nevada, then I think you would see that industry gain power and relatively weaken the grip of the casinos on Nevada. So maybe in 5 years we'll be complaining about how Nevada residents can't see beyond 'rigged' tech jobs that don't pay as much as the Bay Area...
- EpicEng 10y agoIf a casino lost money more often than not... well, there'd be no more casinos. C'mon, be at least slightly realistic here. Where is it written that casinos are supposed to provide you with great odds? It's entertainment.