I hope you can at least understand how it would be more broken by actually having different cards, because again, even after shuffling the events that took place here are still possible. No amount of shuffling or not shuffling can change how many face cards in a deck.
With regard to it being "certain enough", consider whether you would have done the same thing as these people. I can tell you that had I sat at that table, I would have not continued betting higher and higher with the possibility that the next deck is not in my favor and thus possibly losing everything. It of course looks certain in retrospect knowing the whole story of how they were actually unshuffled -- but when you are actually at the table, without this knowledge -- it is again just a chance. You have no idea how many decks come from what company or anything thats going on to result in this. For all you know it might have just been two decks that had the same order due to some weird malfunction. I am sure in the history of gambling lots of people have thought they've seen a pattern recur, bet a lot on it, and LOST -- again, to the favor of the casino.
In other words, consider it from a game theory perspective -- the casino's "long term" winnings absolutely rely on this kind of behavior from patrons. If patrons were to think to themselves "uh oh, something is fishy and this might be unfair, better stop betting" every time they thought they had spotted a pattern or had a system, then the casino would lose tons of money, since they are 99.99% of the time wrong. Casino's winnings fundamentally rely on greediness. That's the basic point I'm trying to make: you can't have it both ways, you can either have greedy patrons who almost always lose everything because of it, or weird bizarro-world patrons that are looking out for the casino.
I think you are right about the retrospect aspect. No one who thought they had detected a pattern (which wasn't later confirmed in the news) would then offer to return the money because they cheated. So I suppose my comment that the gamblers were cheating once they detected the pattern is only really valid in retrospect.
That said, I still don't think I could keep the winnings knowing, in retrospect, that I had won them unfairly, but I think you are right about the casinos needing to sometimes suck it up and take a loss if that's the game they're going to play.
With regard to it being "certain enough", consider whether you would have done the same thing as these people. I can tell you that had I sat at that table, I would have not continued betting higher and higher with the possibility that the next deck is not in my favor and thus possibly losing everything. It of course looks certain in retrospect knowing the whole story of how they were actually unshuffled -- but when you are actually at the table, without this knowledge -- it is again just a chance. You have no idea how many decks come from what company or anything thats going on to result in this. For all you know it might have just been two decks that had the same order due to some weird malfunction. I am sure in the history of gambling lots of people have thought they've seen a pattern recur, bet a lot on it, and LOST -- again, to the favor of the casino.
In other words, consider it from a game theory perspective -- the casino's "long term" winnings absolutely rely on this kind of behavior from patrons. If patrons were to think to themselves "uh oh, something is fishy and this might be unfair, better stop betting" every time they thought they had spotted a pattern or had a system, then the casino would lose tons of money, since they are 99.99% of the time wrong. Casino's winnings fundamentally rely on greediness. That's the basic point I'm trying to make: you can't have it both ways, you can either have greedy patrons who almost always lose everything because of it, or weird bizarro-world patrons that are looking out for the casino.