Controversial Chip & Poker Opinions (95 Viewers)

[upNdown]

I don’t follow. I’m saying overlabels annoy me like trying to match textured labels.

Matching shiny glossy flat labels come out great.

Oh okay. I missed your point.
I was saying that not-textured over labels on textured clay is no different than the way Paulson currently produces chips where the clay is textured and the inlay is not.

 

[toothpic]

I've always been a poker player who appreciates nice chips. I don't think I'm a full on chipper because for the most part, I'm not big on where the chips are from or the history behind the chips (some what but not high on my list at least).

I care about having a complete set that plays well, looks good, and feels nice. If I was no longer playing poker, I wouldn't be as interested in or keep so many sets.

That said, I still appreciate and will avoid any permanent change on harder to find/more rare chips because I get how hard it is to complete a set sometimes. Some sets just require it though since there are some denoms that aren't available in quantity. Also when the chips need a shaped inlay to match with other sets, your options become much more limited so I understand the chip reassignment work done with some hot stamps.

 

[Deucekies]

Just imagine someone buying a Rio WSOP set and murdering it.

 

[Jacks]

Just imagine someone buying a Rio WSOP set and murdering it.

Oh man…you don’t think this was a good idea??

 

[Jacks]

View attachment 1695871
Oh man…you don’t think this was a good idea??

Lmao that I told ChatGPT to make it “cheesy” and it took that literally. Humanity still has a hope.

 

[BPTDirector]

Why buy those anyway? After all they are the lesser RHC chips all the snobs hated until now.

 

[Budha]

RHC’s just make me angry (including RIO WSOP’s).

 

[Tonysquander]

RHC’s just make me angry (including RIO WSOP’s).

 

[SwissChip]

Relabel is so much better when it’s done right.

 

[WedgeRock]

- 50c
- $1

 

[GamingWithChips]

Being missed here is my less controversial, but more correct opinion, that T500 base tournaments should be the standard.

There is no longer a place for T5, T25, and T100 base tournaments.

 

[BKisback]

 

[WedgeRock]

Being missed here is my less controversial, but more correct opinion, that T500 base tournaments should be the standard.

There is no longer a place for T5, T25, and T100 base tournaments.

I actually agree with that.

The T500 --> T1000 transition is inefficient, but only happens at the start of the tournament. And I hate figuring out the optimum chip breakdown for T500 and T1000 in a T25 or T100 tournament.

 

[GamingWithChips]

The T500 --> T1000 transition is inefficient, but only happens at the start of the tournament. And I hate figuring out the optimum chip breakdown for T500 and T1000 in a T25 or T100 tournament.

Yuuup, with a T500 you have two main options, which both work perfectly fine:

- 10/10/7/x
- 6/12/12/x

I could go on for a minute about why I love T500 tournaments and think they work so well.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Being missed here is my less controversial, but more correct opinion, that T500 base tournaments should be the standard.

There is no longer a place for T5, T25, and T100 base tournaments.

I have a T500 base, a T100 base, multiple T25 base, and a T5 base, which is most assuredly not a T5 structure with extra zeros.

There is room for everything except T5000, because that is just a base T5 with extra zeros for absolutely no reason. Most players wont even say "thousand" after betting 25,000, they just say "twenty-five", so why make the readable denom smaller to fit in the extra ",000"?

You may as well score soccer by 10s. It wont change anything, but some dope will think "a 10-10 tie is far more exciting than a 1-1 tie"

 

[Tonysquander]

 

[GamingWithChips]

There is room for everything except T5000, because that is just a base T5 with extra zeros for absolutely no reason. Most players wont even say "thousand" after betting 25,000, they just say "twenty-five", so why make the readable denom smaller to fit in the extra ",000"?

You may as well score soccer by 10s. It wont change anything, but some dope will think "a 10-10 tie is far more exciting than a 1-1 tie"

I know I wrote a novel but I covered this in my previous post. T500 is the cut off where tourney denoms just become unnecessary. You still get YUGE numbers, to cosplay a high roller event, but it's not needless

And a much less important reason for not starting at T1000 (or T5000) is that when people make bets or count their stacks they don't use the word "thousand" very often. When everyone knows the context that each chip is already in the thousands they just drop the word and say "3" or "I'll bet 50" instead. Having a T1K or a T5K base tournament is the same as a T1 or T5 base but you've just added on the word thousand for funsies (which is perfectly valid for novelty, especially when you have @cpac54 Rio set , but not for a standard tournament, in my opinion). When doing a T500 base set you start the tournament betting in "hundreds" (ie 15-hundred, 85-hundred etc) and then switch into betting thousands later on (5-thousand, 45-thousand etc), so in a way the denominations actually matter a little more and serve more of a purpose.

And to slightly clarify my take, it's more that T500 should be the gold standard. Still room for T5-T100, I just think T500 does tournaments better.

 

[doublebooyah85]

T25K base