After reading a bunch of the other responses I noticed something that I didn't pick up on when I first read your post. I have read it again and would agree that it is not right that collectors arriving at the cage for a scheduled release should have to wait till all the dealers pick up their chips until they can get any. This would indicate, to me at least, that The Aladdin has intended to have NO LIMIT on what dealers can get and would have been happy if all the dealers bought out the entire release. That I would agree is not fair.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I think this is another reason why, and would agree that, a release should be divided according to a formula. 60/40?, I don't know. 50/25/25, maybe. Maybe 40/30/30. According to my previous suggestion that might be Dealers for the first split, Collectors, at the cage could get the second cut and at the tables for the third. Also, maybe casinos should consider increasing editions to, say, 1000 or 1500 instead of 500 or 750. That is unless the issue limit is a number of reletive significance like 777, or 1040 as with the IRS chips, or 2000 as with Millenium etc. My ideas above would simply be a starting point. Maybe there is a more equitable division or size for a release? I would leave that up to the casinos and their marketing people and other management to know what will sell or be adequate. I would go on to say, that maybe instead of guaranteeing every dealer on a list an allotment of chips, dealers wanting chips should have to compete for the chips in that allotment. If they are not the first there than some other dealers will get their chips. Then the second allotment can be distributed at a collectable limit of say 5 per. The remaining chips would be put at the tables. If any chips are not picked up, in the dealer allotment or in the collector allotment than either those chips could be made available openly? or more put at the tables.

I know that there is an issue that casinos have to balance the outstanding chips with amounts of cash on their books. I think a casino doesn't have to fear overproducing a run of chips that much. Someone can correct me if I am wrong but can a casino retire or varifiably destroy a portion of their sets of chips or do they have destroy the entire set. In other words, can a casino produce, say, 1500 of a commemorative or LE and destroy 1500 of their older current chips to balance them out??? If they can retire only a portion of some chips than they can absorb, into play, any chips that do not sell upon release. As I said before, from my observations while playing, when LE or Commemorative chips come up in play, frequently, they will attract attention and a new collector may be born.

As for the issue of the unfair policies turning collectors off of LEs, I would like to clearify that I don't believe that it really turns collectors off, as a whole. While I agree that it may appear so, especially when people publicly declare that they are not collecting anymore or returning chips to the cage or selling their collections, I think the interest really just shifts from one collector to another. Those who do get turned off and sell their chips will usually find another collector to buy them. Those who have returned excess traders or inventory to the cage would probably find that someone has or will come in and pick up the returned chips. I really think that if there has been such a reduction in interest the casinos wouldn't be producing more and more LEs and collectors and dealers wouldn't be making such a fuss.

In closing, I am not saying that either side is totally wrong. I believe and hope, that in an attempt to please certain groups within the hobby, the casinos are, perhaps, over-reacting and going to some extremes to please people. Some are catering to the dealers with reserves and preferences, maybe to help distribute the chips over wider areas of the country, while other casinos are trying to avoid any criticism by putting rediculous limits on chips to prevent the hoarding and other unfair practices of SOME dealers. Both sides of this issue have their legitimate concerns. Perhaps the answer is to have blocks set aside for different types of distribution.