When did this community become so ??? (1 Viewer)

[Meddler2]

Finally some transparency on the quantity and price of the chips.

Just taking the average per prior statement:

The base prices for Paulson Star chips ranged from $1.13 to $1.57 each....

 

[superchromix]

How exactly did the knowledge of the Boat Chip purchase impact your purchase decisions? Assuming the seller is part of the Boat Chip purchase...

No Knowledge
Seller: Hey, I've got these PCA/TRK/Horseshoe/other chips available for sale...
Buyer: You know, I've been looking at buying those chips... I'll take them.

Boat Chips are produced and delivered after the transaction.

Knowledge of Boat Chip Purchase
Seller: Hey, I've got these PCA/TRK/Horseshoe/other chips available for sale...
Buyer: You know, I've been looking at buying those chips... but I want those Boat Chips that you're purchasing!
Seller: Ok, but you're not part of the purchasing group, so you're not getting them at cost.
Buyer: Buy PCA/TRK/Horseshoes at market price... or do nothing.

So you either spend the money on the chips you bought, or you don't spend it and look to buy Boat Chips if they ever become available to the market (not guaranteed). You're not changing your mind and buying, for example, PCAs instead of that TRK set... and you're not suddenly going to be invited to purchase the Boat Chips at cost. You could always hope the Boat Chip purchasers need money desperately and will drop the price on their sale sets, but you'll never know for certain who's part of that group...

The Boat Chip purchase primarily affected any chip sellers who posted classifieds after they became common knowledge, due to the frenzy these chips created. With everyone focused on the Boat Chips and the drama, other sets were sitting on the Classifieds for longer and some people would have needed to lower the prices in order to sell these sets. Has there been a long-term impact on the market? Of course: some people are out of the market because they have their "grail" set (no different than if they acquired another "grail" set). Others might not be as active as they'd be if they hadn't purchased Boat Chips... but, again, no different than after any major Chip Room / Chip Vault / Chip Exchange sale...

Did the Boat Chip purchase stop you from buying the chips you wanted? No.
Did the Boat Chip purchase make you pay a higher price for the chips you wanted? No - no guarantee the chips you wanted were being sold by a Boat Chip participant.
Did the Boat Chip purchase "flood" the market with high quality chips? No - unlike in a Chip Room sale, only a very small fraction of the 300,000 chips (or whatever) produced have actually hit the market.

I believe this is why members like @BGinGA find it difficult to believe the market was impacted to a significant degree, or for a significant length of time, and ask you for specifics. Buyers never had an option to get Boat Chips at cost... prices for the other chips would have remained stagnant or decreased. The market shifted to a general buyer's market EXCEPT for Boat Chips, which became a very strong seller's market for those who wanted to sell (and, if I understand correctly, these were never supposed to hit the market).

You are missing the point. My post is about misinformation and loss of trust. It is not about the specific impact, or not, on other people, which would depend on each person's circumstances.

 

[CHP TD]

funny

this is a thread jack that actually answers the original question posed in the thread.

wow that's a first.

well played everyone!

 

[BGinGA]

Due to the nature of that particular project, I understand the need for secrecy. Still, I think there should have been some way to accommodate the whole PCF community who were interested without jeopardizing the whole venture?

I'm all ears on how that might be (or have been) accomplished in a practical manner. As it was, the project was prematurely aborted due to the vindictive actions of a few, some of which were actually a part of the project at one time (and chose to not participate).

I'm wondering if GPI would have truly balked at a non-casino order request of 300,000 w an average price of $1.35/ea if they received a very large deposit? That's over $100k in revenue...

Well, they've certainly turned down 100k+ chip orders in the past as a matter of policy.

And your math above is faulty -- star chip orders generated over a 1/2-million in sales for GPI.

I'd love transparency on:

- who the privelaged few are
- potential for new orders
- potential for reorders

Don't understand your need or expectation for transparency regarding a private project of which you had no part, but whatever.

Up to individual participants to identify themselves if so desired. Not anybody's place or right to produce a list.

Zero possibility for new star chip orders or reorders, due to the undermining actions of people outside of the project. That ship has sailed.

 

[MacGrad]

You are missing the point. My post is about misinformation and loss of trust. It is not about the specific impact, or not, on other people, which would depend on each person's circumstances.

Then why keep bringing up "market impact" and how the Boat Chips "affected your purchase decisions", as you have in previous posts in this (and other) threads?

Almost everyone agrees the purchase was a divisive point in the forum's existence, and that trust/sense of community/etc was affected. That was mentioned as early as post #2 in this thread, so there's no need to keep rehashing it. And, these many months later, you're not going to convince those who think otherwise that your opinion is correct.

So if you're bringing up financial/economic arguments, please provide proof beyond hypotheticals (keeping in mind one instance is not a trend). If you're bringing up "trust" arguments, ask yourself what it accomplishes at this point, and if it goes towards healing this community that you seem to care about.

 

[Beakertwang]

That ship has sailed.

Where's the rimshot emoji?

 

[superchromix]

Then why keep bringing up "market impact" and how the Boat Chips "affected your purchase decisions", as you have in previous posts in this (and other) threads?

Almost everyone agrees the purchase was a divisive point in the forum's existence, and that trust/sense of community/etc was affected. That was mentioned as early as post #2 in this thread, so there's no need to keep rehashing it. And, these many months later, you're not going to convince those who think otherwise that your opinion is correct.

So if you're bringing up financial/economic arguments, please provide proof beyond hypotheticals (keeping in mind one instance is not a trend). If you're bringing up "trust" arguments, ask yourself what it accomplishes at this point, and if it goes towards healing this community that you seem to care about.

If you read the thread, I have been asked repeatedly for additional details and examples of what I mean. I’m pretty sure my second post was something to the effect of “You see it your way, I see it mine, let’s just move on”. Subsequently, @BGinGA and others asked for further details and examples. I’m responding to those requests. So, if you’re going to chime in now and ask why i’m bringing this up, maybe read the thread first.

 

[superchromix]

Affect them and their decisions how, exactly? And if you plan to bring up the 'lowered value of other sets' BS again, either provide examples or don't bother.

The truth is, and has long been, that GPI doesn't sell to the general public, and a group buy for Paulson chips simply isn't possible. There was nothing misleading about it. If you think that they will, or that a group buy will work, then go for it and prove me wrong.

@BGinGA you’re the one who wanted to continue this debate. I responded to your post, above. Over to you.

 

[MacGrad]

So, if you’re going to chime in now and ask why i’m bringing this up, maybe read the thread first.

Comments like this only further the overall impression noticed by Stocky in the initial post... especially since I've been part of the conversation since the second post.

Maybe reread your post #121, in which you state the GB impacted the market without giving examples -- heck, my hypothetical situations give more of an explanation on the changes in market dynamics than you have. Or where you state people made investment decisions that were negatively impacted by the Boat Chips and they lost money...

Neither of these have anything to do with "trust in the forum". They are definitive statements regarding financial impacts... and, if you're going to try to quote them as gospel (as you have here, and as you did on CD), it's acceptable for members to ask you to justify your comments.

 

[superchromix]

Comments like this only further the overall impression noticed by Stocky in the initial post... especially since I've been part of the conversation since the second post.

Maybe reread your post #121, in which you state the GB impacted the market without giving examples -- heck, my hypothetical situations give more of an explanation on the changes in market dynamics than you have. Or where you state people made investment decisions that were negatively impacted by the Boat Chips and they lost money...

Neither of these have anything to do with "trust in the forum". They are definitive statements regarding financial impacts... and, if you're going to try to quote them as gospel (as you have here, and as you did on CD), it's acceptable for members to ask you to justify your comments.

Ok, I’d be happy to respond. Give me links to the specific text you’re referring to, and I’ll respond in the thread below.

 

[BGinGA]

@BGinGA you’re the one who wanted to continue this debate. I responded to your post, above. Over to you.

There really is no debate. You make inflamatory comments, then are unable or unwilling to provide any type of evidence to back them up.

Still waiting for you to provide specific examples of the "people who spent fortunes on used chips and lost money", the altered purchase decisions that were based on believing that a GPI group buy isn't possible (it isn't, btw), the chip sets sold for high prices that buyers lost money on, and exactly how the chip market was affected by Star chips.

You have never provided specific examples of ANY of those four things, yet you continue to announce them as facts. If you want to now retract those statements, fine. But if actually true, show us the money.

 

[superchromix]

There really is no debate. You make inflamatory comments, then are unable or unwilling to provide any type of evidence to back them up.

Still waiting for you to provide specific examples of the "people who spent fortunes on used chips and lost money", the altered purchase decisions that were based on believing that a GPI group buy isn't possible (it isn't, btw), the chip sets sold for high prices that buyers lost money on, and exactly how the chip market was affected by Star chips.

You have never provided specific examples of ANY of those four things, yet you continue to announce them as facts. If you want to now retract those statements, fine. But if actually true, show us the money.

I am happy to go through this and respond point by point, but first let me ask you to actually answer the points I made in my last response.

It seems that you are avoiding the question of loss of trust in the forum, etc., and instead are focusing on asking for proof of financial loss. I think this is at best tangential to the main point.

 

[Poker Zombie]

When did the community become so...

It's not. There were some heads being butted because of deals that went sideways, but those threads have since died off. If anything, people making deals are a little more aware to be very forthcoming if there is going to be some delay with payment/shipping.

Then there are those that cannot let something pass. They want to bang a drum about "trust being broken" or "investments going south". I've seen tips around here claiming Bitcoin was the place to put your money, and watched it drop 65% of it's value. Still, that is barely covered - and never leaves the Bitcoin thread, because normal people are civil.

Quite frankly, I don't know what superchromix wants. The Star Cruises happened. They are done. Fin. Kaput. Nobody can undo it, and nobody can invite you in on it. It's over, and the bridges has been burned. If you don't trust the entire forum, why hang around? If you dont trust 50 people, most of whom you probably dont even know who they are, how do you decide gets your trust? If you don't trust BG...

Well, then you're obviously not one of the dozens of people that have bought/sold chips via BG, nor have you been one of the countless many that had him develop a blind structure for you. You probably don't trust his chip breakdowns when making a purchase, though many have, and openly thanked him afterwards. You also don't trust his advice on chip designs either.

But this doesn't seem to be the case on a broader scale. Most people trust him. A few don't.

...but he never gave Bitcoin advice that may have cost people thousands.

 

[Jambine]

Or you can forget spot progression and still get some pretty nice chips

View attachment 199579

Agree. Only one level 2 chip here, and yet, I got exactly what I wanted

 

[Jeff]

 

[BGinGA]

I am happy to go through this and respond point by point, but first let me ask you to actually answer the points I made in my last response.

It seems that you are avoiding the question of loss of trust in the forum, etc., and instead are focusing on asking for proof of financial loss. I think this is at best tangential to the main point.

Dude, if you don't want to -- or can't -- provide examples that several people have repeatedly asked for, fine. But misdirection isn't going to cut it.

I'm not avoiding anything. You've stated that people blatantly lied during the project; I don't believe that to be true. You've stated that there are lack of trust issues; well, that's entirely possible -- it certainly seems true of you. I'll give you that point, but I was never arguing it in the first place.

But it's your failure to back up any of your claims is what many people have an issue with.

 

[David O]

Wow, I decided to come back and see this thread and nothing has changed other than I saw some pics of some nice chip sets.

Ok have to say it.....

If it was so bad then you would not see the "Heart" of the community coming together for @BiGGyT run or even the amount that was raised for my wife's walk in November or even for the Shrine donation in my wife's honor.

I am almost at the point of just saying "S#!* or get off the pot". Well I guess I said it. LOL

It is funny how we get going real good for a while and then something is said and then a few come back to peel the proverbial scab. I keep saying if you really are truly for the "community" then the scab would remain and the "community" could heal.

The GB happened. Both sides have their opinions and will not change the other sides opinion. As I have said before, debating on a forum is kind of ridiculous IMO. When I debate I like to look that person in the eye. It really gets old. If someone wants to discuss something please reach out to me via PM. Maybe we can speak over the phone because we all know that most of the time the written word does not fully convey your true meaning.

Going back to other threads!

Keep on Chipping!
David O

 

[Meddler2]

And your math above is faulty -- star chip orders generated over a 1/2-million in sales for GPI.

correct. 300k x 1.35 (ave.) = $405k. That's assuming the order(s) was only for that stated 300k.
I guess my point is if they had an order request with 50% deposit, I think they'd be very tempted to accept the order; provided it didn't violate their larger customer contracts somehow.

 

[Meddler2]

Dude, if you don't want to -- or can't -- provide examples that several people have repeatedly asked for, fine.

I guess if someone really wanted to they could go back and look at all the classified sales that occurred at or around the time the GB got green-lighted. But since there's not a published list of participants (nor should there be) or has anybody provided specific dates surrounding the GB, then it seems unprovable. That's not the same thing as saying it didn't happen. Hell, it could have happened by mere coincidence. Maybe there was an unnoticed uptick in chip prices right around that same time period unrelated to the GB.
What's done is done but when new members inquire about the "epic" GB, I don't think the topic should be avoided altogether but because of the need for secrecy and general unwillingness of the organizer(s) to share the facts, it's impossible to discern fact from fiction, from reality; which makes it all seem very bush-league.

 

[Meddler2]

Agree. Only one level 2 chip here, and yet, I got exactly what I wanted
View attachment 199882

Beautiful set. And I agree that progression can be overused / overvalued at times. I try to spend my money on the workhorse cash chip that is on the table 99% time. Why spend the dough for level 4 spots on a chip that will seldom see the felt?

 

[Trihonda]

I've stayed silent for the most part, but felt the need to share MY experiences. These are my perceptions and recollections of the time. This is not intended to tell people they can't feel mad, excluded or left out, or to tell people whether or not they lost money in chip transactions during that time frame.

I participated in PART of the Star endeavor, mainly due to the lack of funds (I didn't purchase a ton of chips). To alleviate my funding issues, I attempted to sell a couple of decent sets (not grail sets, but nice condition Paulsons from several TCR sales a few years before). I remember the market being so flooded with so many similar classifieds (possibly from Star Cruise participants doing the same thing?) that all the prices seemed ridiculously low. My sets (though priced pretty low) either sat unsold or I had to reduce the price below what I was comfortable selling for. I didn't sell all the sets I needed to, and wound up finding money elsewhere to make my Star purchase.

I also recall several other Star cruise guests and I having conversations about the market being hard to sell chips (and all the deals that were out there for the taking). Who knows, maybe there was someone who overpaid or got shafted. I'd have no way of knowing about other people's transactions. I really only think that market depression I was observing lasted a few months (as people were trying to generate money quick). All I know is I didn't see any inflated prices (I wish I had). Consequently, those sets I sold are now selling for 2x what I sold them for.... But the market moves up and down. It's just how it goes.

I also believe that there is a scab that is trying to heal. Some folks acted badly on both sides of this debate, but I genuinely believe most everyone here is decent (away from the keyboard). I'm not sure that debating this over and over will allow folks (and this community) to heal and move forward. However, I've seen several threads where there was constructive and thoughtful discussion about the star chips, but at some point people need to look inside and ask if the conversation, "barb", or point you are trying to make is healing or hurting. Does it move us forward or backward?

 

[legend672]

Couple of quick questions. Am I right in my understanding the boat chips were purchased under false pretenses? In other words....did the boat chips buyers lie to Paulson to get these chips made ? Did they conspire to make a purchase that they knew was strictly against company policy. This policy, which protects their lawful clients, would seem to be there for good reason. If they did, with intention of profit, it seems pretty shady. If I am mistaken, please correct me.

 

[superchromix]

Couple of quick questions. Am I right in my understanding the boat chips were purchased under false pretenses? In other words....did the boat chips buyers lie to Paulson to get these chips made ? Did they conspire to make a purchase that they knew was strictly against company policy. This policy, which protects their lawful clients, would seem to be there for good reason. If they did, with intention of profit, it seems pretty shady. If I am mistaken, please correct me.

I don’t think the intention was profit..

 

[Poker Zombie]

Edited. Going back to my happy place.

 

[BGinGA]

correct. 300k x 1.35 (ave.) = $405k. That's assuming the order(s) was only for that stated 300k.
I guess my point is if they had an order request with 50% deposit, I think they'd be very tempted to accept the order; provided it didn't violate their larger customer contracts somehow.

Correct, that's not an accurate overall chip quantity count, and also doesn't include other items such as racks and dealer buttons.

GPI required orders to be paid in full prior to starting production. I don't think a 50% deposit would make any difference in straying from company policy.

 

[BGinGA]

Couple of quick questions. Am I right in my understanding the boat chips were purchased under false pretenses? In other words....did the boat chips buyers lie to Paulson to get these chips made ? Did they conspire to make a purchase that they knew was strictly against company policy. This policy, which protects their lawful clients, would seem to be there for good reason. If they did, with intention of profit, it seems pretty shady. If I am mistaken, please correct me.

The transaction was conducted between two corporations. Unless specifically set up as non-profit entities, it is my understanding that all corporations are designed and established to make a profit. When the goals of two separate corporations align and specific terms are agreed upon, they conduct business together. That's what happened here.

 

[detroitdad]

The transaction was conducted between two corporations. Unless specifically set up as non-profit entities, it is my understanding that all corporations are designed and established to make a profit. When the goals of two separate corporations align and specific terms are agreed upon, they conduct business together. That's what happened here.

Couple of quick questions. Am I right in my understanding the boat chips were purchased under false pretenses? In other words....did the boat chips buyers lie to Paulson to get these chips made ? Did they conspire to make a purchase that they knew was strictly against company policy. This policy, which protects their lawful clients, would seem to be there for good reason. If they did, with intention of profit, it seems pretty shady. If I am mistaken, please correct me.

So yes, at a minimum there was some misdirection.

 

[legend672]

Thanks for clarifying some of it, but did they lie to Paulson or not ?

 

[crussader]

... When the goals of two separate corporations align and specific terms are agreed upon, they conduct business together. That's what happened here.

One of GPI's policies that is publicly known is that they do not sell chips intended for private use. That "goal" was certainly not in alignment under this deal.

 

[CraigT78]