An occurrence within Nevada is gaining some prevalence. When a patron presents a high value of chips, some casinos are confiscating these chips and returning a receipt rather than legal tender. The excuse given is that per regulations they can pay only patrons, and the person presenting the chips is not known as a patron. The incidents increase with the value of the chips, and high value chips such as chocolate ($5,000) chips draw instant scrutiny.

With this said, the compliance with this rule may prove difficult. If a cashier wants to get higher level approval, demand that the chip(s) remain with you. If the manager demands to examine the chip, have him come outside the cage. Ideally, before the chip(s) are given up, see the green counted out on the counter, and if the cashier makes any move to absent themselves with the chip, demand that it be returned and that any inquiry take place face to face with you having access to your chip(s). If there is any question, simply inform the cashier or supervisor that you have read of casinos just taking chips from players, and that you are protecting
against this occurrence. Also, inform them that possession of the chip has nothing to do with determining whether or not you are a patron. Of course, if you are a player with a player’s card that supports the win, all of this becomes largely moot because you will very likely be paid.

On a different level, avoid the high denomination chips. This, of course, is harder than it may appear. Protecting goodwill and anonymity may well turn on willing compliance with requests of the pit boss or dealer. Demands to color-up can be direct and almost oppressive. Indeed, a dealer or pit boss can make it sound like you have no choice.

Still, quickly standing, pocketing the chips on the table, and walking away can suffice. Alternatively, limiting a payout to blacks may occur on a statement that you are just going to another table. I have also seen chocolate chips avoided by a patron stating that he would never want to carry a $5,000 bill, and certainly doesn’t want to carry a $5,000 chip. The smaller the denominations, the easier it will be to leach out full payment without inquiry. If the casino ever gets its hands on one or more of these big chips, you have bought a gaming dispute with all its attendant disclosure requirements, and the corollary loss of anonymity with respect to that casino. This is obviously a result to be avoided.

There is also the question as to why the casino can take the chip and not pay. There are conflicting laws on this, and that presents the difficulty. First, chips are expressly defined in the regulations as a "representative of value issued by a licensee." More importantly, once issued, the chips are "evidence of a debt owed to their custodian." The regulation expressly states "custodian," thereby rendering chips a bearer item. The regulation does not say "patron," does not say "customer," and does say "custodian." Thus, chips represent a debt owed by the casino to the person in custody of the chips.

Against this clear statement of a debt, there is a conflicting provision that states, "A licensee shall not redeem its chips or tokens if presented by a person who the licensee knows or reasonably should know is not a patron of its gaming establishment . . .". So, the end result is that it is possible to have a non-patron who is owed an express legal debt by the casino, but the casino has a corresponding duty to not redeem those chips. This truly appears to be an irresolvable conundrum under the law.

Still, the proscription is that the casino "not redeem" the chips. There is no right, implied or express, that the casino may confiscate this representation of a debt owed to the custodian. It appears that the casino, if it knows that the presenter is not a patron, is restricted to telling
the presenter that they cannot redeem the chip from him. The obvious way around this is to give the chip to a "patron" in order that the "patron" can redeem it.

I would also suggest that the burden under the regulation allowing for a refusal to redeem is on the casino. Note that the language says that the casino cannot redeem a chip from someone that they "know" or "reasonably should know" is not a patron. First, if the presenter is a "patron," then there is no excuse whatsoever for failing to redeem. If you could ask the casino a question such as, "How do you know that I am not a patron?", and no answer can be given, then the casino is obviously outside the regulation in refusing to redeem. Maybe carrying a copy of Nevada Gaming Regulation 12.060, showing it to the cage boss, and pointing out
the unsuitable practice of refusing to redeem could result in prompt payment. When the gaming agents arrive, do the same. Again, it is the casino’s burden, and if such a course is taken it should be repeatedly pointed out that you don’t have to justify or prove yourself as a patron, the casino has to prove you aren’t or weren’t.

You might even walk over to a machine, put in a quarter in front of the cage personnel, and say, "Now I’m a patron, pay me." The regulation does not restrict the redemption of chips to persons who have received the chips through means other than play, but to nonpatrons.
In this respect, the direct language clearly says that if you are a "patron," then the casino must promptly redeem their chips from you.

Another factor playing on this is the legal status of how you hold the chips. While you may be cashing the chips for another advantage player, the law of contract and the common law generally, allow for the free assignment of contract rights. Likewise, evidence of indebtedness
is freely assignable. As an assignee of the "patron," you take on the status of the "patron." This
should include the "patron" status under principles of assignment. Another factor playing into this scenario is that persons in society are allowed to use agents to conduct their business. This includes agents for undisclosed principals. The agent stands in the shoes of the principal. If the principal is a "patron," then redemption should occur on presentation by an authorized
agent. Again, the burden is with the casino to show that they know or reasonably should know that the presenter is not a "patron."