There are a lot of things the law says are illegal that are completely ridiculous (a Google search will confirm this).
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.
And by 'greedy' you mean 'want to stay in business'. What do you think would happen if people were allowed to guarantee wins at a casino? They're not running a charity.
People want to be able to gamble at a casino, even when they know the odds are in the house's favor. If you want to be able to gamble at a casino, you have to make it illegal to cheat; otherwise casinos would go out of business.
Consider this: there are advertisements in the subways that warn people against the psychological dangers of gambling.
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.
Making fraud illegal is pretty common in lots of industries. That is what these laws are; they are saying you can't agree to a casino's terms for their games and then break them.
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"
Or they would get off their laurels, stop resting on law and innovate every time they find a new way someone is gaming the system. It was easy to stop card counting by adding in more cards, but it took catching someone counting and seeing how they where doing it, to come up with a simple hack to stop it.
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.
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.