Jim, In addition, as you well know, the Uniform Commercial Code outlines the requirements for Sale, Purchase, Bailment, etc. Your concept of roulettes having no value is interesting at best but is not applicable since the player "places" the value he/she wishes upon the piece of clay at the time of bailment. We are not dealing with an abandonment of property where the concept "anything that is truely worthless cannot be stolen" would apply. In general,title to property cannot or will not transfer because of "possession" alone. To contend a roulette player "purchases" the chips is technically incorrect since the casino never intended for title to pass. The taking of these chips is a crime against ownership not merely a crime against possession as you contend. In addition, I really take issue with you involving what you consider to be "stealing". The issue isn't how much is it worth, or how large or small the item stolen is - the issue is: Is it stealing? Not whether YOU would prosecute. I believe your note was written with well meaning intentions but can and would confuse those who are not as blessed as you with knowledge. Thank you, Jim