Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post

Here’s the thing you’re still not getting. Casinos sell gambling. They are not taking “advantage” of anybody.
Oh I get it. Cigarette Companies sell tobacco. They are not taking 'advantage' of anybody either. Only they know people get addicted to their products and it kills them. Is it moral? Is it ethical? Or just a company that employs a bunch of people trying to make a profit? Nothing wrong or immoral about that.

Whether or not you reject the Atlantic article, there are in fact addicted gamblers in this world and the casinos purposely target them. All I'm pointing out is that when you try to say exploiting the bug is unethical or immoral or just plain wrong....if it's legal...(and it appears to be), they are no more unethical or immoral or wrong than the casinos trying to legally separate gambling addicts from their money.

How does that matter? I'd have no problem taking casino money if I found such a legal flaw in a game. I would consider that an advantage over the casino, but I'd have no problem taking it. They are in the business of offering casino gambling games it's their responsibility to make sure the games work as they want. Not mine It's my responsibility not to blow all my money gambling or not to get so drunk I don't remember blowing all my money gambling.

There are lots of organizations and individuals I would have a problem exploiting any kind legal advantage. Casinos don't fit into that category for me. Is it situational ethics? Maybe. Or maybe it's just playing a game and it didn't work out the way the Casino intended. Not my problem....Because Freedom & Responsibility. Just like it's not my problem if weak or sick or impaired gamblers lose their fortunes to the Casinos. They should have made better choices. I really don't think we're that far apart on this. The issue is when we start moralizing about the legal actions of players and casinos. Maybe neither are truly ethical, but I don't care.