[dragonwriter]

> The point of the product is to gamble, not to determine in advance which one has the best outcome or odds.

The manufacturer’s goal is to leverage the addictive behavior associated with gambling to get money while not being restricted in market reach (as to venues, eligible purchasers) or profits by regulations and taxes targeting gambling, sure.

That’s not the buyer’s goal, though, and I see no reason that the manufacturer’s buyer-hostile attempt to hack around laws designed to protect against and provide resources to mitigate exactly the kind of predation it is engaging in deserves particular respect.

> In much the same way that a casino won't let you hover around and count cards

Casinos, by law, where permitted to operate at all, in many jurisdictions wouldn’t let most of the market for the goods in question even on the floor except to make through transit, specifically to protect them from gambling.

[dTal]

Because it's a zero-sum game with other customers. "Cheating" doesn't hurt the company at all, but it does lower everyone else's chances.

[dragonwriter]

> "Cheating" doesn't hurt the company at all

If the people that care most about rare cards target them more effectively rather than buying however many packs needed to get them randomly, how can it not?

And, also, if those playing by the rules that the manufacturer set up get less of a “ooh shiny” bump to keep playing by the rules than is designed, again, how can it not?

[dTal]

Hm. I suppose you're right, in the large.

In the small, it still mostly feels like you're unfairly changing the rules of the game out from underneath the next person to walk in the store. By analogy, it's not ethical to rig someone else's slot machine to steal people's money and pay it out only to you - even if you think slot machines themselves are unethical. Claiming to be be curing them of their gambling addiction seems... convenient.