As, for example, in Nevada:
"NRS 465.075 Use of device for calculating probabilities.
It is unlawful for any person at a licensed gaming establishment to use, or possess with the intent to use, any device to assist:
1. In projecting the outcome of the game;
2. In keeping track of the cards played;
3. In analyzing the probability of the occurrence of an event relating to the game; or
4. In analyzing the strategy for playing or betting to be used in the game,
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.
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...
The discussion is about whether those laws make sense and are moral, or if they were designed by greedy guys in suits trying to punish anyone who dares to play their game in a way different than intended.
It makes total sense for a business to act greedily, I wasn't saying otherwise.
It does not make sense for it to become law.
Should those be illegal, given that they cause the casino to lose money?
Should Uber be illegal, given that they cause taxis to lose money?
I'm not talking about incentives here. Everyone will act according to their incentives. That's nature. The taxi industry will lobby against Uber. That's nature.
The justification for passing a law should not simply be to help a business stay in business.
Businesses should thrive based on a superior product, not because they threaten people with punishment for not doing things the way they want.
It is like it being illegal to dine and dash - you could say, "well hey, he restaurant should have made me pay first if they didn't want me to just leave after my meal! They need to change their business model, not resort to the law"
I see no problem with banning a "cheater" (I don't even like the word, as they just figured out the rules of the game better than the house), from the casino, but to legislate that people cannot use an advantage that they have discovered seems like an abuse of law. The casinos don't have to offer games they know can be gamed, and they are free to come up with their own solutions to restore the odds in their favor. To me abusing the law is just laziness on their part to help maintain their advantage, while criminalizing a class off people who where nothing more than smarter than the house.
This is why card counting (in your head) isn't illegal - though it can get you banned. Using a device to do the same thing for you IS illegal.