... a rented room and its amenities and the "rented" (if that's what it is) roulette chips. That is, the rent paid for the room and its amenities is far less than their value (and even then, there are certain portions of the "amenities" which are there for expendable use and/or taking, such as soap, shampoo, stationery, etc.). Generally speaking, the amount paid for roulette chips exceeds the cost of the chips to the casino.

I understand and appreciate some of the other concerns you have raised (in particular, the impact of harvesting on the ability of the casino to run its game and the possible reintroduction of the chips into a higher value game). If I was in charge of the roulette game at a casino and wanted to insure that everyone knew that roulette chips were not available to walk, I'd POST A SIGN TO THAT EFFECT ON EVERY TABLE. That would eliminate any implied consent argument which a contentious defense attorney might otherwise raise. In my opinion, there is no excuse (in particular, no legal excuse) for failing to do so if the casino truly wants to prevent roulettes from walking. As things stand, the aggressive marketing of chips to collectors has created an atmosphere in which the average person would have no way of knowing that taking roulettes is not permitted, giving rise to the implied consent I mentioned earlier.

To get back to your point, Bob, the casinos do not generally make any comparable marketing effort which could lead to a reasonable belief of implied consent to remove the furnishings, towels, etc., in a room.

I appreciate the offer to learn roulette at your elbow (and am well aware of your prowess at the game <g>), but I think I'll stick to poker, where I only have to beat the other players, not house odds which are stacked against me.

----- jim o\-S