One does not need to play any sort of blackjack. A person can be aware that whatever game you play in a casino the odds are with the house. It is plain stupid to gamble when the odds are against you. By allowing the casinos government is making money from people's greed and stupidity. Even though my taxes might be higher if casinos were banned I favour their banning. Conmen make money from people's greed and stupidity. I don't think it is legitimate for the government to be the conman. I don't think the social problems caused by the increase in bankruptcies, prostition and general corruption resulting from the casinos is compensated for by the money government receives from them.

I would suggest theynhave not changed then rules, rather, they have introduced a new game, with new rules and, if anyone does notmlike the new rules of this game, simply walk past and play the table with old rules.

Govt; always play on peoples stupidity, that's where speed cams come in.

It is probably churlish of me to point out, but the suggestion the government has any role at all to play in regulating the amount of money stupid people lose in Casinos seems to me a little out of place. Freedom to be stupid is one of our most precious freedoms - without it, we would just be one big nanny state, and Brave New World will have finally arrived.

"Everyone works for everyone else. We can’t do without anyone. Even Epsilons are useful. We couldn’t do without Epsilons"

Soma, anybody?

Actually there is a role for a Gaming Commission to rule on % a gambling operator wins at the expense of the punter, in the name of fairness.

That is what they are set up for.

With respect, Chris Lewis...

>>Actually there is a role for a Gaming Commission to rule on % a gambling operator wins at the expense of the punter, in the name of fairness.<<

The amount a casino wins at the expense of a punter is precisely, inevitably, inescapably... 100%.

Which is why gamblers are told only to bet what they are prepared to lose. Because that is exactly what they will do.

Lose.

The only variable is time, not the mathematical certainty of the outcome. Making rules that prolong this period is pure cosmetics, nothing more.

In fact, if the government is serious about "containing" gambling (which of course it is not) it would allow - nay, insist - that casinos gradually increase their retention percentage. That would a) provide the casinos with extra profit in the short term, but b) ensure that they eventually had no clientele at all.

Complaining about a change to the odds in favour of the house, is to miss the point entirely.