• This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

Looking for chip IDs. (2 Viewers)

colter ripton said:
Travis your full of shit man.

You come in the thread not knowing anything about the chips or the sale or anything else in this situation and start guaranteeing that noone called or made offers, then you start making up different scenarios and say they were left to her by a loved one and blah blah blah I would pay more, the make up some bullshit scenario about a 5 million dollar painting. Really?

You dont have to be right on every fucking situation dude. Especially when you don't know anything about it.

How much you pay for those Wynn chips?
Did you go back to the seller and give them more money after you sold them on here for huge profit? Did you go refund the lakeshore seller after you auctioned off your set for huge profit? If you did i apologize if not then shut the fuck up and mind your business.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely ridiculous man. I can't believe we're even having this conversation. First, I'm speaking in generalities. Every single post I say "I'm not saying this is what Dan did here". I've stated multiple times that I don't know the specifics of that deal. I'm arguing with the general principle that "once something is paid for, it's a done deal." That's an absolutely ridiculous viewpoint to hold and I can't believe anyone is sitting here pretending it's not.

Do you really think that just because you sit there and spend countless hours trying to find people who you can fleece and take advantage of online that it somehow entitles you to the profits because you thought you had "scored" before they had a chance to find out the real value of what they had? The amount of time and effort you put into taking advantage of someone is irrelevant. That gets trumped by the fact that you're taking advantage of them. Sorry, not sorry.
 
RainmanTrail said:
I agree that it would be scummy to renege on a sale that was done in good faith by both parties just because you have a slightly better offer now. If you sell a rack of chips for $300 then renege because someone else offered you $350 just as you were about to drop it off at the post office, then you're a bitch. Period.

But if one party is getting completely fleeced by the other party and the one getting fleeced is made aware of that fact before the goods change hands, then it's entirely different. That changes everything. You simply can't argue against my $20 Van Gogh painting example without exposing yourself as a complete asshole.

Same would apply here. If some new member showed up with a 2,000 chip hoard of brand new Mapes thinking they were worth $100 because that's what he saw "poker chips" selling for on eBay, and he posted a for sale ad at $100, your "dibs" doesn't mean jack shit just because you saw them first. It still doesn't mean jack shit even if you already sent the $100 because you knew damn well that this guy was going to find out in a matter of minutes that what he has is worth $20k+. Sorry, not sorry, but you knew that your $100 was completely taking advantage of this dude when you sent it. Don't act like it comes with a moral obligation on his part to honor it. That's bullshit and fuck anyone who thinks it's not.
Click to expand...
These examples are nothing like the situation here. Your Van Gogh argument is nothing but a straw man trying to make you look morally superior.

This lady took them to a third party and it is on the third party to research and find the value. And she obviously did some research to come up with the original sale price.

But what do I know I’m just a selfish immoral prick.
 
colter ripton said:
How much you pay for those Wynn chips?
Did you go back to the seller and give them more money after you sold them on here for huge profit? Did you go refund the lakeshore seller after you auctioned off your set for huge profit? If you did i apologize if not then shut the fuck up and mind your business.
Click to expand...
Nice try. Every purchase and every sale I've ever made here have been made in good faith by both parties where each of us knew what we were getting and where each of us agreed on the market value of those chips. Both the Wynn chips and the Lakeshores I purchased from chip dealers. The market changed and I benefited from market changes, not from fleecing people. Even the Outpost chips were bought in good faith. I tallied up what I thought the full market value of those chips were and shared the numbers with him. Then I said I'd be willing to buy them all for x% less than that number.

But keep up the bullshit buddy. You just might piss me off enough to encourage me to write that web scraper I've been contemplating writing for a few years now. I could end your little chip fleecing business in a weekend of coding if I really wanted.
 
RainmanTrail said:
That is absolutely ridiculous, and remarkably immoral and selfish of you if you honestly believe this. Go read my post above about the $20 Van Gogh painting. If you still think that deal should be honored after reading that then YOU are the problem here.
Click to expand...

ekricket said:
Just to be clear, you advocate gong back on your word and shafting people based on value. Good to know when dealing with you. A deal with you isn’t done until the buyer has their chips in hand is what you are saying.
Click to expand...

These and several other posts make points based on what is ethical or not, what is scummy or not etc, & I do get that. I think what has been missed here is the letter of the law.

No one is going to go hire a lawyer over a few hundred chips & most likely not even over 1600 cic chips that may or may not be worth 5 or even 10k. The guy that buys a Van Gogh for 1.2m & then has it stolen after a contract is in place has a legitimate beef as does Dan if I understand this whole thing right. Dan decided it wasn't worth the trouble and just straight gave up. In this case the amount of money wasn't enough that it was a slam dunk to go hire a lawyer, but in the case of the 1.2m Van Gogh I can assure you that many many people would be hiring a lawyer.

The amount of money really has nothing to do with any of this. I believe that legally it is all about the contract and whether or not a legal contract was in place.

I know lawyers will be lawyers and try and make things more complex than they should have to be, but in my mind all the elements of a contract were in place and Dan should be the rightful owner of the chips.

A simple Google search of a legal contract yields this:
The five requirements for creating a valid contract are an offer, acceptance, consideration, competency and legal intent.

The Offer: Would You Like to ...?
The offer is the "why" of the contract, or what a party agrees to either do or not to do upon signing the contract.

Acceptance: I Agree to Your Offer
Acceptance is exactly what it sounds like: the person receiving the offer agrees to the conditions of the offer.

Consideration: Who is Paying What?
Consideration is what one party will "pay" to complete the contract.

Legal Intent: We Intend this Agreement to be Legally Binding
This requirement for a contract refers to the intention of each party.

Competency: Parties Must Know What They're Doing
Those signing the contract and entering into the contract agreement must be competent. This means that they are of legal age to sign a contract; they have the mental capacity to understand what they are signing; and they are not impaired at the time of signing – meaning they are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
 
ekricket said:
Just to be clear, you advocate gong back on your word and shafting people based on value. Good to know when dealing with you. A deal with you isn’t done until the buyer has their chips in hand is what you are saying.
Click to expand...

Paint it however you want. You always seem to put words in my mouth that I have to spit back out. But I'm happy to double down on my statement that if you think the seller of my $50 Van Gogh painting example should feel any obligation whatsoever to honor that transaction after finding out that she is getting completely taken advantage of for her painting that's worth $5 million dollars, then YOU are the asshole here. Not me.
 
Josh Kifer said:
Is this the January fight? It feels like the January fight.....
Click to expand...

If it is, then I’m just making funny faces in the corner like this guy

1611423323240.gif
 
Instead of me sitting here arguing with people who want to try to justify why their moral compasses are actually quite well calibrated as they scour the internet looking for old ladies to fleece, I think I'll just redirect my time away from this thread and start writing some code to help out the old ladies and that will make all these listing much more competitive instead. :tup:

If anyone is interested in getting email alerts for whenever these listings get posted, send me a PM.
 
RainmanTrail said:
............I'm happy to double down on my statement that if you think the seller of my $50 Van Gogh painting example should feel any obligation whatsoever to honor that transaction after finding out that she is getting completely taken advantage of for her painting that's worth $5 million dollars, then YOU are the asshole here. Not me.
Click to expand...

Do you think that legally there is a difference between someone unknowingly selling the Van Gogh for $50 and unknowingly selling it for 1.2m when there are others that may have bought it for 5m?

I hate to break the bad news to you....
Like it or not, asshole move or not, if you are under a legal contract and push comes to shove you may be required to stick to the contract you agreed to.

I am quite certain that nowhere in contract law is it written "if I make a bad deal, I can renig"
 
Nanook said:
Do you think that legally there is a difference between someone unknowingly selling the Van Gogh for $50 and unknowingly selling it for 1.2m when there are others that may have bought it for 5m?

I hate to break the bad news to you....
Like it or not, asshole move or not, if you are under a legal contract and push comes to shove you may be required to stick to the contract you agreed to.

I am quite certain that nowhere in contract law is it written "if I make a bad deal, I can renig"
Click to expand...

I don't give two fucks about what's legal. I care about what's moral.
 
Nanook said:
Do you think that legally there is a difference between someone unknowingly selling the Van Gogh for $50 and unknowingly selling it for 1.2m when there are others that may have bought it for 5m?

I hate to break the bad news to you....
Like it or not, asshole move or not, if you are under a legal contract and push comes to shove you may be required to stick to the contract you agreed to.

I am quite certain that nowhere in contract law is it written "if I make a bad deal, I can renig"
Click to expand...

In Norwegian law there are at least ways a presumed legally binding agreement can be considered invalid after the fact. Probably so in the US as well.

Edit: Not that this is super relevant to this thread though, but probably more so in the theoretical $20 painting that is later valued at several million...
 
Last edited:
Oh, BTW I am not in favor of fleecing little old ladies
RainmanTrail said:
I don't give two fucks about what's legal. I care about what's moral.
Click to expand...

I commend you for being ethical and caring about what is moral.

Your way of conveying it is less than stellar. Stooping to name calling is not an effective way of arguing your position.
 
RainmanTrail said:
Nice try. Every purchase and every sale I've ever made here have been made in good faith by both parties where each of us knew what we were getting and where each of us agreed on the market value of those chips. Both the Wynn chips and the Lakeshores I purchased from chip dealers. The market changed and I benefited from market changes, not from fleecing people. Even the Outpost chips were bought in good faith. I tallied up what I thought the full market value of those chips were and shared the numbers with him. Then I said I'd be willing to buy them all for x% less than that number.

But keep up the bullshit buddy. You just might piss me off enough to encourage me to write that web scraper I've been contemplating writing for a few years now. I could end your little chip fleecing business in a weekend of coding if I really wanted.
Click to expand...
I think this thread says everything anyone needs to know about rainman. Chips damaged in shipping and he wants the seller to pay him for the lost profit. Not reimburse the selling price, but Travis wants the markup he would have sold them for.

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/poll-damaged-wynn-tourney-chips-reimbursement-thread.13472/
 
RainmanTrail said:
That is absolutely ridiculous, and remarkably immoral and selfish of you if you honestly believe this. Go read my post above about the $20 Van Gogh painting. If you still think that deal should be honored after reading that then YOU are the problem here.
Click to expand...
It is not absolutely ridiculous, and it is actually one of the fundamental principles of contract law. Offer and acceptance. Someone can back out of a deal, but that will and should lead to a breach of contract claim.
 
Hornet said:
It is not absolutely ridiculous, and it is actually one of the fundamental principles of contract law. Offer and acceptance. Someone can back out of a deal, but that will and should lead to a breach of contract claim.
Click to expand...
Should we delve into the world of specific performance due to the nature of Van Goghs and rare poker chips? ;)
 
Hornet said:
It is not absolutely ridiculous, and it is actually one of the fundamental principles of contract law. Offer and acceptance. Someone can back out of a deal, but that will and should lead to a breach of contract claim.
Click to expand...

Would it also be a breach of contract if one (or both) parties misrepresented themselves in regards to their own legal entity (i.e. fraudulently)?
 
allforcharity said:
OH, THE GAUNTLET HAS BEEN THROWN DOWN!

Sir, I shall meet you at dawn. We shall fight with your choice of Cadbury bar at twenty paces.
Click to expand...
For that matter, both Cadbury's Whole Nut AND Fruit & Nut suck, too!

I'll see you there, dude. I'll be the one with the Wispa in one hand, a Double Decker in the other — and a Creme Egg already in my mouth.

giphy (19) (39).gif
 

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!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

B
All in brand poker chip
Replies
2
Views
110
drdr
D
K
Do 43mm Chips fit in a chip tray?
Replies
3
Views
263
upNdown
upNdown
S
Ideas for upgrading IDS Luna poker table
Replies
0
Views
281
SuperMinh8
S
Z
Identify this outer design/pattern? Anywhere to order?
Replies
11
Views
213
Zyhre
Z
Tommy
Chip Manufacturer ?
Replies
6
Views
468
greenchip
greenchip
Back
Top Bottom