[205guy]

I like this argument. When looking at the other analogies (ATM giving you too much cash, cashier giving you wrong change, etc), the missing detail is that a casino is sort of a morality-free zone for money when you think about it. The casino is given a license by the state to offer losing odds to customers, thus guaranteeing the casino a (statistical) advantage (and the gov't a cut of the profits). In other words, the casino is allowed to exploit people's greed and credulity that they can beat the odds.

And so, if there is no money-morality at a casino, I don't see why casino patrons shouldn't be allowed any exploit of whatever games the casino offers (card counting, bug exploits, etc)--barring of course any threats or injury to people. If the dealer doesn't shuffle the cards or the game has a bug, up to the gambler to take advantage of it until the casion fixes it.

So by this reasoning, creating counterfit tokens at a casino would be considered fair-play. I actually don't see that as a problem--it does not affect legal money supplies so why should the feds or states prosecute it. Up to the casino to protect itself and develop secure tokens. I don't see why the feds were involved in that case either (of course, I understand under the current laws).

In my hypothetical world, he only thing the government should be regulating are the taxes (on winnings by both sides) and the non-money aspects of casinos, such as ensuring personal safety. It's not allowed for the patron or the casino to threaten or hurt anyone based on any money transactions. Casinos can exclude patrons by refusing to allow them to play, but they can't physically interfere with them.