Morals, ethics, legalities or hardcore chip harvesting. (5 Viewers)

[ekricket]

Haven't seen anyone really mentioning marketing. Many casinos make limited edition chips specifically for collectors to bring home.

PALMS obviously would not make 431 limited edition chips (according to chipguide) if people were not allowed to bring them home.

Casino Chips = marketing. Casino business is about making the customers happy and feel welcome and want to come back or recommend the casino to others.

View attachment 757402
View attachment 757403

Casinos want people to come play in their casino. If harvesting was not allowed, they would like others have suggested have put up signs about it. There is a dedicated segment on eBay for casino chips. There is a substantial amount of people that collect a handful of chips from each casino they visit, it is a souvenir. Casinos are obviously aware that harvesting is a thing, and if they wanted to it would be so easy for them to restrict it instead of catering to it.

If they wanted you to take their regular chips they wouldn’t make special commemorative denominations just for you to take home. Maybe the commemorative market is a way for them to stop regular chip loss, figuring people will take the special ones (that they likely don’t have to hold cash for years in case of redemption) and leave their regular plain chips alone.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

I think you overestimate the value of this from the casinos point of view. It's not like they can simply "profit" those $1050. They obviously need to have cash on hand to be able to cash in all chips they have outstanding with gamblers, collectors or whoever has their chips. If they run short on chips and need to reorder from GPI, they still need to be able to cash the precious issued chips and as such can't just "profit". Maybe down the line when the chips are made obsolete 5-30 years from now (or whatever based on rebranding or how the business is going), they might be able to finally "profit" on outstanding chips after claiming the chips will be obsolete if not handed in withing a given time frame.

Honestly I'm not sure how all of this works, but I'm pretty sure the casino do not just "profit" when someone buys a rack of chips from them. The chips will be redeemable for years, and the casino will obviously have an obligation to exchange chips that come in for cash.

Specifically for your "murder case", my point is that the casino will not be aware of which of their outstanding chips are still intact and redeemable, but have to assume that all of them are.

Well, it’s complicated… but it seems like casino’s actually do benefit from when someone pulls out $5s not because they “profit” but because they can delay the recognition of that profit and put it on their books as a liability. If anyone wants to read 20ish pages more about this incredibly exciting topic:

https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=glj

 

[Lemonzest]

They were riddled with inconsistencies and lack of parallelism with the situation in casinos.

Take a bottle of liquor or a TV. If you take them without paying, or paying some random amount below the marked price, it is outright theft.

A casino chip is entirely different: It’s an IOU which has utility in a game. It is not a consumer product.

So what are chips worth to a casino? I’d say it’s the amount for which it is redeemable minus the replacement cost.

If you take a 25c chip, you are almost surely “stealing” value from the casino, since no matter what horrible condition the frac is in, the cost of replacement is going to be greatee than its redeemable worth.

Say the replacement cost is $1.50. If you take a 25c chip and never come back with it, the casino loses $1.25.

If however you take a $100 chip home, the casino profits $98.50.

Its an analogy. Its kinda like an allegory to make a point.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

Its an analogy. Its kinda like an allegory to make a point.

The article I posted defines the significant difference between examples well. Casino chips are “advanced receipts” meaning cash receipt for goods or services not yet provided. Completely different from most of if not all of the examples provided so far.

 

[ekricket]

The article I posted defines the significant difference between examples well. Casino chips are “advanced receipts” meaning cash receipt for goods or services not yet provided. Completely different from most of if not all of the examples provided so far.

Casinos are about profit. If it’s profitable for them when people harvest don’t you think they’d be selling these things in the gift shop? Or sending them home with you? Or not coloring you up or cashing you out when you leave a table, hoping you forget about those chips and they “profit”. If I was making $$$ a rack I’d be encouraging my dealers to send racks home with players. Look at the reactions here - people would be happy and thrilled if you paid a dollar for their .38 cent chip.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

Casinos are about profit. If it’s profitable for them when people harvest don’t you think they’d be selling these things in the gift shop? Or sending them home with you? Or not coloring you up or cashing you out when you leave a table, hoping you forget about those chips and they “profit”. If I was making $$$ a rack I’d be encouraging my dealers to send racks home with players. Look at the reactions here - people would be happy and thrilled if you paid a dollar for their .38 cent chip.

Well, it’s complicated… but it seems like casino’s actually do benefit from when someone pulls out $5s not because they “profit” but because they can delay the recognition of that profit and put it on their books as a liability. If anyone wants to read 20ish pages more about this incredibly exciting topic:

https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=glj

…

It makes arguing much more efficient* to be fair

 

[CrazyEddie]

So, say you snag three racks of 5s, and send them to @Josh Kifer for murder.

To be fair, this ought to be illegal. #SaveOurChips #MurderIsMurder

 

[CrazyEddie]

If anyone wants to read 20ish pages more about this incredibly exciting topic:

Oh boy, DO I !!

Edit: How awesome is it that the UNLV Law School publishes a gaming law journal?

... they also offer a Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Gaming law and Regulation.

 

[Taghkanic]

Maybe the commemorative market is a way for them to stop regular chip loss, figuring people will take the special ones (that they likely don’t have to hold cash for years in case of redemption) and leave their regular plain chips alone.

I’d call it more like free advertising.

Or, advertising where you *pay* to spread their brand around.

 

[CrazyEddie]

Well, it’s complicated… but it seems like casino’s actually do benefit from when someone pulls out $5s not because they “profit” but because they can delay the recognition of that profit and put it on their books as a liability.

Thanks for that awesome link. To clarify, and to answer @Marius L 's points:

Honestly I'm not sure how all of this works, but I'm pretty sure the casino do not just "profit" when someone buys a rack of chips from them. The chips will be redeemable for years, and the casino will obviously have an obligation to exchange chips that come in for cash.

The casinos don't profit on any chip that they might have to redeem, but they do profit on any chip that they will never have to redeem. The difficulty is knowing what proportion of their outstanding chips won't ever have to be redeemed. They do know that some won't; these are considered "souvenirs and lost chips" i.e. chips that patrons decide to take home with them, and chips that patrons have mislaid somehow, never to be recovered by anyone. They know that every souvenir and lost chip represents income; this goes straight to the bottom line, making the casino more profitable. They have to account for this income from souvenirs and lost chips in their financial statements to investors, and they have to account for this income in their tax filings.

The two ways that they can try to account for souvenirs and lost chips are:

• Wait for the chips to be retired. Any that aren't presented by the end of the final redemption period will never have to be redeemed, and so they all count as income at that time.
  
  OR
  
  
• Estimate on a periodic basis (e.g. annually) how many of the currently outstanding chips are going to never be redeemed, by counting how many get redeemed within a short period (e.g. a week or two) at the time of the date of estimation.

So, yes, absolutely, when you buy a rack of fives from the cage and bring them home and put them in your cabinet, the casino does indeed profit from that. They have to account for that profit to their investors and to the IRS, and they do so by either counting it eventually when the chips get retired, or more commonly by annually estimating the number of chips that have been squirreled away that year.

And if you do it with a rack of ones, then in the exact same manner the casino gets $100 of income, but will also incur an operating expense (netting out to a small loss of probably around 25c per chip) if and when they decide they need to replace the chips that walked away with more chips from the same non-retired series.

 

[Taghkanic]

Casinos are about profit. If it’s profitable for them when people harvest don’t you think they’d be selling these things in the gift shop? Or sending them home with you? Or not coloring you up or cashing you out when you leave a table, hoping you forget about those chips and they “profit”. If I was making $$$ a rack I’d be encouraging my dealers to send racks home with players. Look at the reactions here - people would be happy and thrilled if you paid a dollar for their .38 cent chip.

(A) Technically State laws don’t appear to allow it, so they couldn't put them in the gift shop.

(B) How many cases are there of a casino actually stopping someone from harvesting, let alone banning people for harvesting? How many prosecutions? If there are any, it is a minuscule number compared to the demonstrable number of people on PCF alone removing racks and racks of chips.

If it were a problem, they would be enforcing against it. They have all the resources to do so.

But they don’t. That tells you all you need to know.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

Thanks for that awesome link. To clarify, and to answer @Marius L 's points:



The casinos don't profit on any chip that they might have to redeem, but they do profit on any chip that they will never have to redeem. The difficulty is knowing what proportion of their outstanding chips won't ever have to be redeemed. They do know that some won't; these are considered "souvenirs and lost chips" i.e. chips that patrons decide to take home with them, and chips that patrons have mislaid somehow, never to be recovered by anyone. They know that every souvenir and lost chip represents income; this goes straight to the bottom line, making the casino more profitable. They have to account for this income from souvenirs and lost chips in their financial statements to investors, and they have to account for this income in their tax filings.

The two ways that they can try to account for souvenirs and lost chips are:

• Wait for the chips to be retired. Any that aren't presented by the end of the final redemption period will never have to be redeemed, and so they all count as income at that time.
  
  OR
  
  
• Estimate on a periodic basis (e.g. annually) how many of the currently outstanding chips are going to never be redeemed, by counting how many get redeemed within a short period (e.g. a week or two) at the time of the date of estimation.

So, yes, absolutely, when you buy a rack of fives from the cage and bring them home and put them in your cabinet, the casino does indeed profit from that. They have to account for that profit to their investors and to the IRS, and they do so by either counting it eventually when the chips get retired, or more commonly by annually estimating the number of chips that have been squirreled away that year.

And if you do it with a rack of ones, then in the exact same manner the casino gets $100 of income, but will also incur an operating expense (netting out to a small loss of probably around 25c per chip) if and when they decide they need to replace the chips that walked away with more chips from the same non-retired series.

Thanks for the full read through and analysis. I'll probably read the rest of it later tonight as well #accountinglife

 

[CrazyEddie]

(A) Technically State laws don’t appear to allow it, so they couldn't put them in the gift shop.

In addition, if they were sold in the gift shop, then (as explained in the paper @ReallyGoodUsername linked to) that would be income that the casino would have to recognize immediately; the casinos prefer to defer recognizing that income until the chips are retired. Furthermore, if they were sold in a gift shop the chips would be regarded as property rather than as liabilities, and there are a bunch of court cases revolving around the fact that chips are not property i.e. they always remain the property of the casino and there is no way to transfer ownership of the chips to the purchaser. Not to mention having to pay sales tax...

 

[Taghkanic]

Or to look at it another way...

Say you’re a pro, who moves to Las Vegas and opens a safe deposit box at a big casino.

You buy $50K in chips and put them in your deposit box to get your roll started.

But then you go on a world tour... Or get gravely ill and spend three months in the hospital... Or you are such a high roller that you start playing elsewhere and forget you have 50K chips in the box.

As a practical matter, how is this different than if you had kept the chips at home?

Either way, the chips are not in circulation in the casino. They are not being used in its poker games, or at its blackjack tables, etc. They are just sitting there.

The casino has your money; you have their chips.

Does the casino start fretting: “Oh no, those 50K in chips are not circulating—we have GOT to track this guy down”?

Nah. It’s likely they care more about whether you paid the box rent than about what is in it. As far as they’re concerned, there is no effective difference between whether the chips are in your car, or hotel room, or house, or chip cabinet, or deposit box.

 

[Lemonzest]

The article I posted defines the significant difference between examples well. Casino chips are “advanced receipts” meaning cash receipt for goods or services not yet provided. Completely different from most of if not all of the examples provided so far.

I was just trying to be nice to @upNdown since his analogy nicely illustrated the point he was making. Trust PCF to deep dive a topic that doesn't really deserve it. No offense, we are all nerds. I am just saying I don't view this as a super complicated concept that requires a ton of research.

The chips belong to the casino. We shouldn't take them but we do anyway because we are nerds that love chips. I will leave the heavy lifting to the more academically inclined with the available bandwidth.

 

[Taghkanic]

An interesting section from the paper posted by RGU [emphases mine]

In an ideal world for chip accounting, all patrons would cash in all of the chips in their possession once they are done gambling. However, this is not the case and some patrons leave the casino prior to exchanging the chips for cash, resulting in an outstanding chip liability for that casino.

All casinos recoup the overwhelming majority of the outstanding chips over time. Patrons either return the outstanding chips for cash or gamble and lose the chips back to the casino. However, a small percentage of chips will never find their way back to the casino. The amount of chips that will never be returned consists of those that the patrons lost and those that the patrons decided to keep for a myriad of reasons, such as forgetting, not wanting to bother, or desiring a memento from their Las Vegas trip. The chips the patrons decide to keep are considered “souvenir chips.” Patrons that keep these souvenir chips generally retain the lower denomination chips with a higher frequency than the higher denomination chips.

In general, the amount of outstanding chips increases year after year. The fluctuation in the amount of chips the patrons are holding while on property accounts for a portion of this general increase in the outstanding chips. The cumulation of the lost and souvenir chips accounts for the remaining increase. Where the outstanding chips liability is made up of both the chips that will be returned and those that will not be returned, the casinos cannot be certain what percentage of the total outstanding chips have been lost or kept as souvenirs and will, therefore, never be redeemed.

The main thing that interests me here is the implication that casinos expect and make adjustments/allowances for a certain amount of annual disappearances. These add up over time, which presumably results at some point in needing to purchase additional chips. However, the article seems to imply that the “overwhelming majority” of chips stay in the casino, with the percentage which never return to the cage staying quite small, in the scheme of things.

 

[BGinGA]

Regarding commemorative chips, several Vegas casinos offered a variety of 'specialty' design cash chips at one time, with the intent of having customers keep/collect them (initially $1 chips, but quickly -- and smartly -- moving to the more profitable $5 chips). As I recall, the NGC decided this would/could not be allowed, and clamped down on the practice... only to later relax the rules to some degree. The popular $8 "year of" chips were definitely affected by these rulings.

 

[CrazyEddie]

The main thing that interests me here is the implication that casinos expect and make adjustments/allowances for a certain amount of annual disappearances. These add up over time, which presumably results at some point in needing to purchase additional chips. However, the article seems to imply that the “overwhelming majority” of chips stay in the casino, with the percentage which never return to the cage staying quite small, in the scheme of things.

Not only that, but the chips that never return to the cage are highly concentrated in the small denominations.

At any given time, most of the chips are in the cage, the dealers' racks, rake boxes, etc and in general under the casino's control. Some of them are in the hands of patrons (or lost or taken home). The chips not currently held by the casino is called the float.

Casinos assume, based on experience, that:

• All of the chips $100 or higher will eventually come back to the cage, either by being played and lost at the tables or cashed in by winners.
• Only 75% of the $10 and $25 chips that are in the float - i.e. that are currently held by patrons instead of the casino - will come back to the cage, and 25% of those chips will stay in patron's pockets and go home with them for good.
• Only 35% of the $5 chips that are in the float will come back to the cage, and 65% of them will go home with the patrons.
• Only 10% of the $1 chips that are in the float will come back to the cage. 90% of the $1 chips currently held by patrons at any given point in time will go home with patrons and never return.

These numbers are baked into the federal tax regulations, and they were agreed to in a settlement between the IRS and Eldorado, and have been adopted by most other casinos. They may not be entirely accurate, but they're close enough that everyone agrees to live with it.

Casinos know that people take home chips, and they know that they mostly take home ones (and sometimes fives). They don't care. And given the volume of Plain Old Boring Tourists Who Lose Money Hand Over Fist And Then Take A Few Singles Home relative to the handful of poker chip nerds who want a rack or two, the racks that any of us harvest aren't even a drop in the bucket.

 

[CrazyEddie]

Note that this 90% doesn't mean that if you walked around a casino and looked at people's stacks, 90% of the $1s you see will be walking out of the casino later that day.

It means that 90% of them (and none of the ones in the cage or dealers' trays) will be walking home someday, eventually, between now and the day the chips are retired, which could be years from now.

 

[coolguy101]

Yup
All those missing $1 chips tourists take every day
Looks like they are going broke
Their costs for comped rooms and drinks in a day are I’d guess HUGE compared to a few $1 chips that might not return

now factor in all the $5s and $25s people keep

oh woe is me

Yup, rationalizing theft. They can afford it…..same excuse looters made last year.

 

[Taghkanic]

Yup, rationalizing theft. They can afford it…..same excuse looters made last year.

If stores made a profit when people looted, they would have the same laissez-faire attitude as casinos.

 

[coolguy101]

I've had several Vegas cages help me sort through 5-10 racks so that I could take mint racks home to Australia. I was very clear about my intentions. Mandalay Bay even sorted through themselves and hand delivered two mint racks to me at the table whilst I was playing cash.

So brah, maybe just chill.

That being said, I still think it's dumb and a bit desperate to turn it into a business. I don't see that ending well in the long-run. No need to be greedy.

I’m not talking about situations where the casino lets you have them after you explain why you want them. So chill brah.

 

[coolguy101]

If stores made a profit when people looted, they would have the same laissez-faire attitude as casinos.

So who determines how much profit casino is making, and off of what? Have you analyzed their quarterly reports? No you haven’t.

The topic of this thread is regarding morals and ethics of harvesting. This is regarding harvesting at establishments that haven’t given express permission to do so, or don’t seem to mind. Any casino that doesn’t care if people harvest chips are not part of discussion. We all already know that’s ok, yet people try to use it as a defense.

We are also aren’t talking about the random tourist who takes a chip or two home as a souvenir. We are talking about harvesting, which implies at minimum a barrel, hundreds, or even thousands of chips. The motivation for harvesting can differ between personal use and the intent to resale for a profit.

The reason people try to rationalize is because they don’t want to be perceived as thieves. They rationalize away, giving lame excuses and minimizing their actions. I used to put thieves in jail for a living, and I’ve heard all the excuses before. This thread has been interesting to see who has said what, and how people think. It’s also made me think about the idea of harvesting. It had never occurred to me to try to harvest chips for home use before joining this forum. Then it seemed like a great idea. Then I found out how much the chips actually cost. I’ve changed my mind.

 

[SpaceMonkey420]

I’m in Mexico. I’m flying home for a day, then off to Vegas tomorrow, with San Diego over the weekend. I truly can’t wait to hardcore harvest tomorrow,, this thread got me PUMPED!!! I’m gonna fill some backpacks, get a suite, eat insane meals, and play some PLO till the sun comes up. If u don’t like it, better call your momma cuz I don’t give a shit, and no law or watch collector is gonna change my mind. Mmmuah!

 

[Frogzilla]

So who determines how much profit casino is making, and off of what? Have you analyzed their quarterly reports? No you haven’t.

The topic of this thread is regarding morals and ethics of harvesting. This is regarding harvesting at establishments that haven’t given express permission to do so, or don’t seem to mind. Any casino that doesn’t care if people harvest chips are not part of discussion. We all already know that’s ok, yet people try to use it as a defense.

We are also aren’t talking about the random tourist who takes a chip or two home as a souvenir. We are talking about harvesting, which implies at minimum a barrel, hundreds, or even thousands of chips. The motivation for harvesting can differ between personal use and the intent to resale for a profit.

The reason people try to rationalize is because they don’t want to be perceived as thieves. They rationalize away, giving lame excuses and minimizing their actions. I used to put thieves in jail for a living, and I’ve heard all the excuses before. This thread has been interesting to see who has said what, and how people think. It’s also made me think about the idea of harvesting. It had never occurred to me to try to harvest chips for home use before joining this forum. Then it seemed like a great idea. Then I found out how much the chips actually cost. I’ve changed my mind.

Curious, at what price point did you think “theft” was a “great idea”

 

[utgtrash]

Isn’t the OP really asking if harvesting is by the LETTER of the law dishonest or criminal? Not whether or not a casino SHOULD care? I agree with the reasoning that it either is or isn’t net benefit to them to care based on their bottom line and other considerations but it seems like that’s not even the point. If you only feel comfortable taking one when it says “free take one” then you should probably write a letter to the president and see what they say. Probably they will tell you it is prohibited, simply to restate their position and hold their right to enforce even though we know they never will. I personally feel that it’s definitely not hurting anyone and no ones gonna get in trouble so why not. This is not what the OP is asking, just my moral opinion on this subject.

 

[softchewy]

Let's be honest... the casinos need to share some of the blame here.
They can't make chips that look like this and expect them all to stay on the premises...
Much like there is an Attractive Nuisance Doctrine, maybe there should be an Attracting Numismatists Doctrine that prevents prosecution for collectors of really sweet ass chips...

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

Let's be honest... the casinos need to share some of the blame here.
They can't make chips that look like this and expect them all to stay on the premises...
Much like there is an Attractive Nuisance Doctrine, maybe there should be an Attracting Numismatists Doctrine that prevents prosecution for collectors of really sweet ass chips...
View attachment 757429

 

[Stufflymcstuff]

Isn’t the OP really asking if harvesting is by the LETTER of the law dishonest or criminal? Not whether or not a casino SHOULD care? I agree with the reasoning that it either is or isn’t net benefit to them to care based on their bottom line and other considerations but it seems like that’s not even the point. If you only feel comfortable taking one when it says “free take one” then you should probably write a letter to the president and see what they say. Probably they will tell you it is prohibited, simply to restate their position and hold their right to enforce even though we know they never will. I personally feel that it’s definitely not hurting anyone and no ones gonna get in trouble so why not. This is not what the OP is asking, just my moral opinion on this subject.

If ethics are binary, is driving 5 over the limit on an empty highway equivalent to driving piss drunk? Yes one is tolerated and represents close to zero harm but they’re both unethical to a degree and if those asshole speeders dare to rationalize their actions we all need to stand firm that they’re basically the same as a monster who recklessly destroyed the lives of a half dozen people. That’s my moral opinion on the subject.

 

[MaxB]

I truly can’t wait to hardcore harvest tomorrow,, this thread got me PUMPED!!! I’m gonna fill some backpacks

I'll ask the question everyone is thinking .... what are you getting?