Baseball is a game of skill. So assume the Yankees could ban every skilled player who beat them. They make bank beating little-league rookies. It makes sense to keep the competition at that skill level.
Obviously we're referring to games like Blackjack here, not roulette, which are not purely random.
How do you square that with giving people autonomy? You can do what you want with your money, but you can't play if you don't feel like you are gonna win... there is an inherent contradiction there.
The Libertarian Free Market answer is that both parties need to be fully informed. Casinos would be required to post maximum win rates and otherwise fully detail their "we throw out anyone that wins" policy up-front, in a clear and easily understood format. If the casino writes a bad, exploitable policy, they go bankrupt being exploited and this encourages future casinos to do better.
> and otherwise fully detail their "we throw out anyone that wins" policy up-front
They can just ask the gambler to leave the premises - I cannot imagine some 'libertarian free market' solution which would force casinos to allow anyone to enter the premises and gamble (provided it's not clear discrimination). Being able to count cards isn't some sort of protected class, right?
That's the AVERAGE win rate.
The maximum win rate is "if you make more than $10,000 in profit, we'll throw you out", and I've never heard of that being made explicit.
The point is that if you're going to throw out people who win more than a certain amount, you're not actually offering a fair game. There are secret rules that you haven't been told, and they very clearly bias your overall odds. You certainly shouldn't be able to advertise "you could win big!" if your policies make that impossible.
---
There's clearly precent in other industries, too: If a grocery store advertises a sale on milk, they have certain obligations to offer a rain check if they run out. "According to the Fair Business Practices Act, it is unfair or deceptive if a store advertises goods without intending to sell them or to provide reasonable amounts of the advertised products without providing notice that supplies are limited."
Casinos are advertising the chance to "win big" but have no intention of ever actually paying out.
They are not fine with playing a game that does not advantage them.
I thought that they were suggesting it's ~ the average winrate given optimal play.
BUT if we are going to allow them, should we allow them to only let people play when they lose?
The decision to let them exist is as arbitrary as the decision to allow them to only play when they when.