... >> The player under Nevada rules and casino rules does NOT pay for the
>> chips; he pays for the privilege of using them in a game; the chips are not
>> in any sense sold to him for his use.

In light of the way in which casinos market LE's, I'll bet not one player in ten understands the distinction you have drawn, Travis. Which takes me back to my point regarding implied consent.

>> There are many similar situations in life in which one pays for the
>> privilege of using something but not for keeping the thing permanently
>> depriving the true owner or possessor of his/her rights of possession.

Of course, you are right about that. However, I cannot think of a single other example where the amount paid is equal to or greater than the value of the item being used, such that the owner can actually make a profit if the "renter" does not return the item. Can you think of any other such situation? And if so, do you think the owner would complain if the items walked?

I do think Bob Orme's two points (maintaining playability of the game and reintroduction at higher values) are legitimate concerns. That there are such legitimate concerns, however, does not provide the players with notice that roulette chips are different than the others, which the casino would love to have the players carry away.

I do agree that newbies should beware, as being expelled from a casino (or worse) won't be much fun.

Question for you guys on the inside (Gene, in particular) -- to your knowledge, has anyone ever been charged with and prosecuted for theft for taking roulettes from a Las Vegas casino? Not just thrown out. And not prosecuted for trespass or some other alternate charge. If so, what result?

----- jim o\-S