Controversial Chip & Poker Opinions (101 Viewers)

Stacking racks with accrylics is so easy to just to scrape the entire back or front row of chips as you go to stack. And cause a shit ton of flea bites.
Color me skeptical. But this might call for some experimentation.
 
This doesn’t quite flow for me.

Some chips are hard to remove inlays on for this reason or because lack of interest or time, some people pay to have inlays removed.

Some chips are used predominantly as relabel candidates. A large % of snappers from previous TCR sales get turned into fracs. There are tens of thousands of NAGB chips and many many many have been relabeled, bought and sold, labeled again, etc.

Now put 2 and 2 together.

A) there are X% of all chips that are chips that primarily have value as relabel candidates + B) some Y% of people pay to have chips murdered = any given chip has an XY% chance of being worth more once murdered

Is it worth more to you? Idk, but is it worth more to someone? Maybe.

Like the card club RHCs @ReallyGoodUsername sold. These were awful to murder and I think that’s what most people intended to do with them. If you would pay someone $1/chip to do it for you, why wouldn’t you pay $1/chip more if it’s already done?
I see a couple of flaws in this logic.

- There are a lot of assumptions as to what buyers SHOULD appreciate vs what they actually do appreciate.

- IF you can find the buyer, at that precise moment you are selling, that wants the same chips, for the same purpose. Your position has “some” merit

- Per above, in general, customizations are for the owner, and limit the resale mkt, especially at a premium.

As a general rule, a buyer does not value or care about the sellers “time” or “cost”. They rationalize the value of what they are buying based on an entirely set of factors.

They didn’t commission the work, and likely have a very different view on what the sellers time is worth. To me, it’s $0.

On the other hand, I may value MY time at a much higher rate and therefore am willing to pay $1/chip so I don’t have to do it. The difference is slight but important. A buyer doesn’t value the sellers time, they value thier own. Conversely, some buyers may value their time as “free”.

So the trick is to price it based on how much the buyer values their own time.
 
Last edited:
I see a couple of flaws in this logic.

- There are a lot of assumptions as to what buyers SHOULD appreciate vs what they actually do appreciate.

- IF you can find the buyer, at that precise moment you are selling, that wants the same chips, for the same purpose. Your position has “some” merit

- Per above, in general, customizations are for the owner, and limit the resale mkt, especially at a premium.

As a general rule, a buyer does not value or care about the sellers “time” or “cost”. They rationalize the value of what they are buying based on an entirely set of factors.

They didn’t commission the work, and likely have a very different view on what the sellers time is worth. To me, it’s $0.

On the other hand, I may value MY time at a much higher rate and therefore am willing to pay $1/chip so I don’t have to do it. The difference is slight but important. A buyer doesn’t value the sellers time, they value thier own. Conversely, some buyers may value their time as “free”.

So the trick is to price it based on how much the buyer values their own time.
I don’t see what here is disagreeing with anything I said?

I was just refuting the notion that inlay removal never increases the value of a chip.

You’re complicating it with the pricing of the markup itself but my main point is that for any given chip there may be a potential buyer that prefers the chip murdered. This likelihood goes up for some chips and down for others.
 
Color me skeptical. But this might call for some experimentation.
1715887372163.jpeg

Stacked 9 racks high. Had all but the brown chips (2nd column, 6-8 from the top) ever since the Empress Star "sailed her maiden voyage". Cash chips are played very seldom, $100s and the single $500 (2nd column, bottom rack, $500 on the far right) never used.

1715888104852.jpeg

Zero damage. Nil. Nada. These chips are stored in Paulson racks, but I also have chips stored in Chipco racks (denoted by a P or a C on the rack). Stored indoors, in a room with the HVAC vents closed off, so the temps in the summer reach the 80s (26-32 Celsius).

Flipped over to make sure there was no damage on the other side, and zoomed in close enough to get texture...
1715888543347.jpeg

Not just "mint", it is MINT

I have chocolate $5s. Where does that leave me?
Since I had to pull out the racks for the above photos...
1715888694081.jpeg

Team Brown $5!
 
Last edited:
View attachment 1329681
Stacked 9 racks high. Had all but the brown chips (2nd column, 6-8 from the top) ever since the Empress Star "sailed her maiden voyage". Cash chips are played very seldom, $100s and the single $500 (2nd column, bottom rack, $500 on the far right) never used.

View attachment 1329688
Zero damage. Nil. Nada. These chips are stored in Paulson racks, but I also have chips stored in Chipco racks (denoted by a P or a C on the rack). Stored indoors, in a room with the HVAC vents closed off, so the temps in the summer reach the 80s (26-32 Celsius).

Flipped over to make sure there was no damage on the other side, and zoomed in close enough to get texture...
View attachment 1329693
Not just "mint", it is MINT


Since I hd to pull out the racks for the above photos...
View attachment 1329698
Team Brown $5!
Beyond mint!

Now if you’re not careful or in a rush, the bottom edge of those racks are sharp acrylic. It’s very easy to brush against your chips and cause damage.
 
Stacking racks with accrylics is so easy to just to scrape the entire back or front row of chips as you go to stack. And cause a shit ton of flea bites.
Here’s a before picture:
IMG_0261.png


Here’s a video of me whacking the crap out of the chip with the edge of an acrylic Paulson rack:

And here’s the after pic. No damage.
IMG_0262.png


If you’re concerned you’re going to damage a chip by accidentally nicking the edge with an acrylic rack, I think you can rest easy.
 
I was never too worried about that, but stacking can leave marks 100% without a doubt.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if one of the following is true...
  • You are stacking higher than 9 high.
  • You left them unused for greater than 9 years
  • You store them at temps over 90 degrees
  • You have leaded chips in your stack (they may be softer and/or heavier, I have no leaded chips)
Other than that, I would need more evidence. Even then, after the above photos everything just went back in the stack. I have more fear of a tornado damaging them than stacking.
 
Last edited:
I stack 5 high max, no to the time and temp. I do have leaded chips, but this was particularly noticed with new chips.

Must just be my imagination I suppose.
 
I've owned many more chips than many/most folks here, and nearly all of them are/were Paulsons that are/were stored and in "sharp acrylic' racks, often stacked up to ten-high.

Zero damage over 20+ years. Even if you consider the small 200,000+ chip sample size, I think it should put worried minds at ease.
 
I've owned many more chips than many/most folks here, and nearly all of them are/were Paulsons that were stored and in "sharp acrylic' racks, often stacked up to ten-high.

Zero damage over 20+ years. Even if you consider the small 200,000+ chip sample size, I think it should put worried minds at ease.


Need a bigger sample size
 
Here’s me, whacking the crap out of a whole rack. I was aiming for the edges, trying to make a flea bite, so I missed once. But I whacked and I whacked with the sharp acrylic edge and couldn’t damage the chips.
Grab your sharp acrylic edge pliers and try again.
 
I have also owned a chip or 2 in my day. I'll stick to these new racks and not have to think twice about it all while paying half the price of Paulson racks.

I was all in team Paulson racks and rejected the notion of potential issues for the majority of my chipping. I never saw or had any issues whatsoever with standard racks. Plus racks with lids are annoying for actual play. Never thought I'd ever switch them out. Til I started seeing marks across some barrels here and there. And again, it's nothing extreme, but it was enough for me.
 
Here’s me, whacking the crap out of a whole rack. I was aiming for the edges, trying to make a flea bite, so I missed once. But I whacked and I whacked with the sharp acrylic edge and couldn’t damage the chips.
LMAO this is awesome and also crazy to be watching at the same time.

I do agree, chips are pretty damn durable. I am unsure why I've had some barrels get marks on them and others have no issue. Maybe the surface they are on isn't flat and weight distribution is off. I don't know, but I have seen it more than once to convince me to make the swap.
 
Here’s me, whacking the crap out of a whole rack. I was aiming for the edges, trying to make a flea bite, so I missed once. But I whacked and I whacked with the sharp acrylic edge and couldn’t damage the chips.
Looooool!!!
 
LMAO this is awesome and also crazy to be watching at the same time.

I do agree, chips are pretty damn durable. I am unsure why I've had some barrels get marks on them and others have no issue. Maybe the surface they are on isn't flat and weight distribution is off. I don't know, but I have seen it more than once to convince me to make the swap.
Send all the suspect chips and racks to me and I'll run some 'experiments", no charge.
 
I’ll just introduce a wrench into the conversation that for me “protection” is more than just rack-on-rack damage. I like that they’re fully enclosed to protect random shit getting on a rack when I have them off the shelf on my desk. I like that they feel more stable to be and much easier to pick up and move around without dropping. They’re literally just easier to hold which to me is a protective feature.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom