[kxo]

Except that in the case of live poker, they're getting theirs via the rake.

I assume you're talking about blackjack: unless there is a CSM at the table or an absurd 6:5 blackjack payout (you shouldn't be there in either event, period) you can absolutely play to your advantage.

[raverbashing]

Well, the basic strategy for Blackjack is still slightly in favour of the house

But yeah, you might track cards (good luck doing that with 10 decks though)

[jacobkg]

Most blackjack card counting strategies are no more difficult with a higher number of decks. Instead of counting actual 'cards', one instead keeps a running total of points based on the cards that come out.

In fact a higher number of decks can improve one's advantage when counting because when the count turns in your favor it can happen with more of the deck left to come (so a longer period of advantageous play)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_counting

[CPLX]

This is incorrect, the larger the number of decks, as a general rule, the smaller the advantage of card counting becomes.

[kxo]

If you're counting in a (rare) two-deck game with a full table, time between shuffles is so low that it isn't worth it from a hand/hour standpoint.

[CPLX]

That's nonsensical. The EV of an hour would depend far more on the table limit than any other factor. If I could find a table that would let me vary the bet from $1 to $10,000 a hand on a two deck game they could have Parkinson's patients with oven mitts on shuffling with chopsticks for all I care.