Are Paulson Clay Chips going extinct? (1 Viewer)

[dickzapper]

I'd assume as long as WSOP is having major ESPN coverage for the ME, Rio will continue to order Paulson's. The last two years had so many mentions of "oversized mini-frisbees." Plus the addition of pop up graphics explaining the denoms. Someone over there is convinced these chips are good for viewership, and they must be so. Gotta love the Jamaican flag 1Ms.

 

[justsomedude]

In my opinion, the biggest risk to Paulson (right now) is the number crunching CFO's who are watching the casino's bottom line.

Let's face it, Paulson chips wear much faster than their plastic/Bud Jones counter parts; some one working the numbers will easily find (long term) savings in Bud Jones chips that, while being more expensive up front, will last much longer on the tables over the course of 5, 10, or 15 years. Paulson chips are cheaper out of the gate, but need to be replaced more frequently due to wear and tear, grime, gunk, goo, etc. I'm sure this is something not missed by casino execs, and part of why we're seeing a switch to BJs in some establishments.

Expanding the issue outside of basic dollars and cents, let's be honest... Paulson has never been able to replicate the pre-lead-ban weight of their chips like Bud Jones has. Bud Jones tip the scale at 11grams each and every time, whereas Paulsons are lucky to hit 9grams on a good day (and that's also color dependent). This gives Bud Jones chips a more substantial feel in a gambler's hands, and I'm sure that is not missed by those making entertainment/casino based decisions at the executive level.

Now - all that being said, I do not think Paulson is going away, but I think there are very real issues/considerations that are pushing casinos to Bud Jones and similar plastic based chips. I think smaller casinos, and those with limited budgets, will continue to run the risks on the "faster wearing" and lighter Paulson option, but those making significant outlays in primary and secondary racks may perform deeper cost analyses, and likely find the plastic chips the better long term solution. Even if a majority of players hate their "sticky" feel.

That's just my oh-two.

 

[DJ Mack]

In my opinion, the biggest risk to Paulson (right now) is the number crunching CFO's who are watching the casino's bottom line.

Paulson, Bud Jones...it's all two sides of the same chip (GPI) for those who don't know. GPI doesn't care which brand customers choose as long as they spend money with GPI. When it comes to casino economics GPI has a solution for whatever problem that CFO has.

It's a very different dynamic than if Paulson and Bud Jones were competitors. They're not; they're product lines owned by the same company. If BJ starts to become the go to of choice I could see them keeping Paulson around as a niche for those that want it but not investing in development. Until casinos threaten to take their clay business to CPC they've got them locked in one way or the other.

The real question is the longevity of chips entirely. We're already seeing more and more cruise ships doing away with chips at the table. I don't know how those figures are landing but they must be working out since they continue to expand the use of electronic tables.

 

[upNdown]

Even if a majority of players hate their "sticky" feel.

I'd be willing to bet that customer's preferences are either at the bottom of their list or not on their list at all.
It's very possible that some of us here might choose where to play based on the chips in use. We are an insignificant minority.

 

[DJ Mack]

I'd be willing to bet that customer's preferences are either at the bottom of their list or not on their list at all.
It's very possible that some of us here might choose where to play based on the chips in use. We are an insignificant minority.

I meant to include that point as well. 95% of players don't care what the chips are. Of the 5% that do care, I suspect most will grumble but keep reaching for their wallets. The trip to the casino is about the gambol. Until the chips cause problems for the dealers that result in losses or big slowdowns in play I don't think it matters.

 

[AWenger]

The hard plastic chips stay clean

In my opinion, this is the only reason for going with hard plastic chips over clay. And it may be a big one for some Casino managers on how their chips look. The grime build up on clay casino chips is gross, even for chips at craps and blackjack tables that aren't being handled as often as the chips in the poker room. If only Paulson could come up with a clay recipe that prevented grime and gunk buildup on their chips, but at the same time didn't make the chips slippery.

Paulson chips wear much faster than their plastic/Bud Jones counter parts;

In some sense, this may actually be a feature for clay chips, as the wear on clay chips is hard to mimic for someone trying to create counterfeit chips. Especially for poker tournament chips or higher denom chips at table games.

 

[justsomedude]

It's a very different dynamic than if Paulson and Bud Jones were competitors. They're not; they're product lines owned by the same company.

And, sadly, this a problem for the Paulson brand.

As an independent competitor they could provide cost or lead-time advantages. As just another in-house brand, GPI doesn't care which one gets sold. And I don't see that as a benefit for the longevity of Paulson.

 

[BGinGA]

Security and tracking are two significant edges that Paulson holds over BJ chips, in the eyes of casino managers. It is much easier (and cheaper) to create a set of counterfeit plastics than counterfeit Paulson chips. GPI has invested heavily into high-end security and RFID components for their clay chip line.

 

[upNdown]

And, sadly, this a problem for the Paulson brand.

As an independent competitor they could provide cost or lead-time advantages. As just another in-house brand, GPI doesn't care which one gets sold. And I don't see that as a benefit for the longevity of Paulson.

I don't know about that. Who knows how GPI manages those two businesses, but I'm sure the folks working on the Paulson side have plenty of incentive to do good business. And as far as GPI itself is concerned, I'd think they'd be very interested in keeping their clay chips profitable and prominent. They have plenty of competitors making plastic chips, but pretty much no competitors making clay chips. As long as casinos are using clay chips, they're buying them from GPI. So I expect GPI cares a great deal about the clay chip market.

 

[rowlin]

Until cheaper alternatives rival the security of GPI’s compression molded chips, which are not at all themselves infallible, big properties will continue to use them.

I haven’t the foggiest idea when that will be, but if anyone knows please do tell so I know when to short the shit out of their stock.

 

[Wils]

It's very possible that some of us here might choose where to play based on the chips in use. We are an insignificant minority.

I feel this is very very true.

 

[DJ Mack]

Security and tracking are two significant edges that Paulson holds over BJ chips, in the eyes of casino managers. It is much easier (and cheaper) to create a set of counterfeit plastics than counterfeit Paulson chips. GPI has invested heavily into high-end security and RFID components for their clay chip line.

When it comes to high tech stuff, according to GPI (http://www.gpigaming.com/casino-currency/compare-american-style-chips) AlphaDots are the only security feature available on Paulson that are not available on BJ. RFID, UV, LaserTrack are offered on both.

 

[BGinGA]

^ Which is exactly my point. Those features are much more easily integrated with plastic chips, but GPI felt the need to spend large sums to develop those technologies for their clay chip line as well. They aren't going anywhere.

 

[Quicksilver-75]

Australia is all plastic Sigh...

One would think that an entire continent populated by the worst criminals (and their offspring) the Empire had to offer would pretty much ensure that their casinos would use the toughest security measures at their disposal..