The casinos don’t “keep” the money won on individual gamblers’ losses. It goes right back out to winning players.
Minus that little bit – the “house edge”.
The reason that 4 or 5 other posters above are telling you that your theory is nonsensical is because it literally MAKES NO SENSE.
I’m highly suspicious of those tales of blackjack counters getting banned. I always figured it was most likely claims from people selling books about card counting so you’d buy their book.
If you google the “bringing down the house” story, there’s a lot of reporters who say the while it’s true was an MIT club of kids who enjoyed blackjack, the book was exagerrated so much that it may as well be fiction. The wikipedia article has links, and even the author more-or-less said as much.
But just think about it: card counting loses its advantage as soon as the casino shuffles the cards, right? So if you’re a casino who sees a card counter walk in, why bother taking the bad publicity of throwing him out? Why not just shuffle the cards after every couple hands, and destroy his advantage that way? Better yet, just get a shuffle machine that automatically shuffles the cards (they have these at poker tables). If card counting was really a problem, that would be a much easier way to deal with it than hiring security guards to force someone out.
They do all of these things. But everything you mentioned also effects play. Lowering deck penetration means more shuffling. More shuffling means more time spent NOT gambling. In fact Blackjack tables can do poker shufflers one better in that they have Continuous Shuffling Machines where it immediately shuffles the recently dealt hand back into the 6 decks for an endless loop of cards. However many don’t trust it and are wary of playing at a table with one. Even easier is just telling the counter they have to flat bet the same bet every time.
I’ve never been “banned from a casino” let alone “forcibly ejected.” To the contrary, I was usually offered a consolation prize when barred from the Twenty-One tables: a free meal, or being told “You’re welcome to play Craps.” I suppose I could have refused to leave my seat at the Twenty-One table to see what their “forcible ejection” option was!
But you’re right: For every occasion when I was barred there were dozens of occasions where floorman came over and instructed dealer to shuffle-up or deal down. Against single-deck (at a nearly empty table) without shuffling, player advantage is almost huge but it becomes a psychological battle in which, at best, you seek dealer collusion. For this reason I mostly played against the multi-deck shoe. When Las Vegas started shuffling its shoes prematurely against me, I figured it was time to go back to my day job in Silicon Valley.
Of course I have, but what does that have to do with the discussion prior to this comment, particularly the part you quoted? Bottom line is that Gaming Control would certainly investigate and take legal action against an establishment with a policy of kicking out people just for winning.
No. A business can choose to serve or not serve whomever they want (caveat for protected classes of course).
I think you guys are making it more complicated that it needs to be. You’re missing that silenus said “in the long run”. He means that if you win, you’ll come back again and lose. Then lose again.
[Peeve] “Caveat” means “warning”, not “exception” or “additional clarifying statement”.[/peeve]
And a gaming commission can chose to license or not license establishments that don’t meet their guidelines for “fair gaming”.
I’m not saying that the NGC does or does not revoke licenses for kicking players just for being lucky, but it’s certainly not a free market situation nor is it outside of their authority.
Casinos already have such a policy. If someone is paying close attention to the game (i.e., card counting) or just plain winning too much, they can be accused of “cheating” and asked to leave. Are you telling me this doesn’t happen?
And bring your buddies, who will also lose. And hook the guy behind you who was just passing by into playing a few hands, which he will likely lose. You can’t beat the house edge over millions of hands. You can only take advantage of a brief period when the cards are running your way and you are paying attention.
The more you know. 
“Luck” is a word that has no meaning to a casino outside of the advertising and marketing department. How would a casino possibly cheat by kicking out a customer?
I wanted to address this before reading the rest of the thread, so apologies if I’m reposting old info.
I dealt blackjack from 1997-1999 (or thereabouts).
We used a six deck shoe, with the cutting card going between 1 and 1.5 shoes deep. Manual shuffling.
There was one known card counter where we would cut the shoe at 3-4 decks deep.
What this did was bascially negated any advantage he might have because there wasn’t enough “time” for the shoe to swing far enough to give a mathematical advantage. (it is normally only in the last part of the shoe that the advantage develops enough to make a difference to betting).
In the jurisdiction where I was, a card counter could not be barred from playing. So long as no mechanical methods were used, the player was free to employ whatever strategy he liked.
I take it you mean that it was normally reshuffled when there was about one deck left, not one deck played?
When I was dealing, we did manual shuffling, the players enjoyed it as a chance to go pee, get a drink or whatever without losing their seat or missing play.
And you’re right - the way to deal with a card counter is to lower deck penetration.
FWIW - I always understood that the easiest way to spot a card counter was by bet variation.
Following that, by strategy that went counter to “basic strategy”.
As I said earlier though - where I worked you couldn’t ban anybody for having a good brain, so your only strategy was to cut the deck deeper. Also, we weren’t allowed to “premature shuffle”. The shuffle was mandated by when the cutting card came out.
yeah - we normally put the cutting card one deck deep from the back.
Once the cutting card was exposed, we finished the current hand and then shuffled.
… which can be recognized only after the fact, not while it’s happening (because in real time it’s indistinguishable from the common case where the cards briefly run your way only to shift once you believe you’ve perceived a favorable pattern).
This is actually why card counting works. Because you can use the prevalence of big or small cards to “predict” a run, and then change your bet and / or strategy (normally both) to match the changed odds.
Agreed - card counting (providing the casino fails to take relatively simple steps to frustrate it) can indeed tilt the odds slightly in your favor.
You know, I retract this statement. Now that I think about it I do know places where you can’t kick out card counters. Don’t understand the LOGIC behind it, but I’m pretty sure they do exist.