Blackjack — a game you play to win, unless you’re too good at it, in which case, ‘Get lost!’
Re “Counting cards? Count on an early night” (Metro, Sept. 14): Let me see if I understand this correctly. MGM Springfield offers us the opportunity to play a game that everyone accepts favors the house’s chance of winning. Just as bridge players are more successful the better they remember the cards that have been played, so too is that true in blackjack. The house admits that card counting is legal but that it has the right to refuse players who are too good at the game, a game that still requires luck to win. And the casino justifies its refusal to allow these players “because those individuals are also taking revenue out of the state’s hands.”
I think the only logical conclusion is that winning should not be allowed at all. Each player should be allowed to lose as much as he or she wants, with no limit, but should the player be lucky enough, or skillful enough, to win, no payout would go to the player, though a small fee would be charged to the player, payable directly to the state, so as to ensure that no one takes money from the state’s coffers and that the state is compensated for wasting its resources allowing this player to win.