Aha, I see what you're saying. You're right, but I still think you're reading something into the top-level comment that isn't there. The way I understand it, t

Aha, I see what you're saying. You're right, but I still think you're reading something into the top-level comment that isn't there. The way I understand it, they're not saying "casinos make money because their counterpart is going broke" (and you're right that they don't.) They're saying "in the casino vs. player situation, the player will almost always run out of bankroll before the casino does, and therefore the casino does not risk ruin, even in highly volatile games."