History of Big Top Poker Chips (1 Viewer)

[asam2006]

There maybe information already posted on these chips and their history but if not then will some knowledgeable person please enlighten me about these chips.
All I know is I love them and wish I had all of them. I'd like to know where they originated and how they came to be on this site. Any extra information will be appreciated. Please post comments.

 

[Forty4]

Think most info is here...

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/too-late-to-submit-my-last-set-of-customs-to-hof.37080/

 

[Vice]

I don't have a dog in the hunt and I would hate to any of our good members get in trouble in the future, but:

In Texas, and probably most other states, it is against the law to dupe a company into providing a service under false pretenses.

32.42 A person commits an offense if in the course of business he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence commits one or more of the following deceptive business practices:

(12) Making a materially false or misleading statement:
(b) otherwise in connection with the purchase or sale of property or service.

Only a misdemeanor, but one could possibly make a case for fraud if the item obtained was sold at a much higher price.

 

[Cliff]

Probably a good thing nothing like that happened with the BTP purchase.

 

[ruskba]

I don't have a dog in the hunt and I would hate to any of our good members get in trouble in the future, but:

In Texas, and probably most other states, it is against the law to dupe a company into providing a service under false pretenses.

32.42 A person commits an offense if in the course of business he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence commits one or more of the following deceptive business practices:

(12) Making a materially false or misleading statement:
(b) otherwise in connection with the purchase or sale of property or service.

Only a misdemeanor, but one could possibly make a case for fraud if the item obtained was sold at a much higher price.

This is 100% irrelevant. But nice try to stir the pot.

The history as I know it is someone found a casino person who was able to order custom sets though their Paulson rep. Some sets were made, including Big Top, and eventually Paulson said nah we’re all done doing that. End of story.

 

[Vice]

Not trying to stir anything, just including for future reference. I'm glad it doesn't apply the the BTP Purchase.

 

[pltrgyst]

....In Texas, and probably most other states, it is against the law to dupe a company into providing a service under false pretenses.

32.42 A person commits an offense if in the course of business he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence commits one or more of the following deceptive business practices:

(12) Making a materially false or misleading statement:
(b) otherwise in connection with the purchase or sale of property or service.
[/QUOTE]

Your interpretation is utterly meaningless without context. That is *not* what the quoted statute quoted explicitly says.

"in the course of business" would almost certainly (The "almost is because it is, after all, Texas) make Section 12 apply only to someone *conducting business*, i.e. an actual licensed business, which would not include prospective customers.

Customers are free to lie like rugs.

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

I wonder if people are sensitive about the history of these chips. I can't quite tell though.

 

[Changster]

Thank you to whoever made these.

PLEASE do it again and make 300k chips. For the cash chips make sure you make a hella lot of 100’s, 500’s, and 1000’s. Don’t let money be a roadblock as I’m sure if we all pool our resources we will have enough cash to get an order of 300k chips in.

 

[asam2006]

I love these chips. I just wish I knew the right people to get in on the original group buy. Some people have all the luck

 

[Leonard]

Thank you to whoever made these.

PLEASE do it again and make 300k chips. For the cash chips make sure you make a hella lot of 100’s, 500’s, and 1000’s. Don’t let money be a roadblock as I’m sure if we all pool our resources we will have enough cash to get an order of 300k chips in.

^^^ This

 

[DrStrange]

I encourage people to get proper legal advice from a lawyer licensed to practice law in Texas should they find themselves wondering about conducting business in the state. Words do not mean what a reasonable person might assume when considering what a statute means. The practice of law is filled with "terms of art". Words and phrases are defined by statue and precedent in ways a lay person is unlikely to know or understand.

There are numerous professions with a well earned reputation for dishonesty, skullduggery and a wide array of false pretenses. I can't help but notice that there is little to no evidence of wide spread enforcement of the section of the Texas code cited above if in fact it applies as suggested.

Do-it-yourself legal work is often a tragedy waiting to happen -=- DrStrange

PS this notion can also apply to people with a law license who don't do due diligence prior to offering a pseudo legal opinion.

 

[Vice]

Customers are free to lie like rugs.
[/QUOTE]

Well, all I can tell you is I have a little experience in this area and have filed other parts of the statute on customers, so I don't buy your argument. So I will argue no further and the good folks on here can decide for themselves.

 

[Vice]

I encourage people to get proper legal advice from a lawyer licensed to practice law in Texas should they find themselves wondering about conducting business in the state. Words do not mean what a reasonable person might assume when considering what a statute means. The practice of law is filled with "terms of art". Words and phrases are defined by statue and precedent in ways a lay person is unlikely to know or understand.

There are numerous professions with a well earned reputation for dishonesty, skullduggery and a wide array of false pretenses. I can't help but notice that there is little to no evidence of wide spread enforcement of the section of the Texas code cited above if in fact it applies as suggested.

Do-it-yourself legal work is often a tragedy waiting to happen -=- DrStrange

PS this notion can also apply to people with a law license who don't do due diligence prior to offering a pseudo legal opinion.

I agree with you on getting a lawyers advice but be careful, He's not the one who will go to jail.

 

[David O]

WHY? Anyway carry on.

 

[BarbaraBooey143]

"in the course of business" would almost certainly (The "almost is because it is, after all, Texas) make Section 12 apply only to someone *conducting business*, i.e. an actual licensed business, which would not include prospective customers.

Customers are free to lie like rugs.

Consumers can absolutely be criminally liable for fraud under § 32.42. Deceptive Business Practices. The statute states:

"Business" includes trade and commerce and advertising, selling, and buying service or property.

It is not limited to just merchants.

I personally would be much more concerned with civil liability. Paulson could easily rescind the contract and sue for substantial reputational and punitive damages. Not to mention disgorgement of any illicit profits in the resale market. Their entire business model is premised on exclusively selling to professional casinos.

However, the fact that they have been "duped" multiple times, and never litigated, perhaps means they have willfully turned a blind eye?

 

[Jimulacrum]

Their entire business model is premised on exclusively selling to professional casinos.

Imagine what it would do to their business model if it were to become widely known—say, via a lawsuit—that any of the alleged actions happened.

Probably better for them to not sue anyone and just respond internally, to prevent it from happening again.

 

[bergs]

This is 100% irrelevant. But nice try to stir the pot.

The history as I know it is someone found a casino person who was able to order custom sets though their Paulson rep. Some sets were made, including Big Top, and eventually Paulson said nah we’re all done doing that. End of story.

This is accurate with the added detail that the casino owner that put in the order mandated that we go play poker at his small legal NH room a couple of times to try to drum up interest, and then the chips were given to us as promotional material.

I don’t think it worked. We went there a couple times and played some mixed games and had fun but he just couldn’t get a lot of foot traffic in the door given their northern NH location. I believe the room closed a while back.

 

[BarbaraBooey143]

Imagine what it would do to their business model if it were to become widely known—say, via a lawsuit—that any of the alleged actions happened.

Probably better for them to not sue anyone and just respond internally, to prevent it from happening again.

Depends on how much $$$ they can recover from the lawsuit. If the scammer has deep pockets, it could be worth it to send a message. If the scammer is broke, I agree the lawsuit would be pointless. The lawsuit isn't just about reversing the contract. The reputational and punitive damages could be extraordinary.

 

[BarbaraBooey143]

This is accurate with the added detail that the casino owner that put in the order mandated that we go play poker at his small legal NH room a couple of times to try to drum up interest, and then the chips were given to us as promotional material.

I don’t think it worked. We went there a couple times and played some mixed games and had fun but he just couldn’t get a lot of foot traffic in the door given their northern NH location. I believe the room closed a while back.

Tbh, sounds like a conspiracy between the casino owner and straw purchasers. There are about 1000 threads on this forum disproving the "innocent" explanation.

Bottom line, criminal statute of limitations have expired. Paulson hasn't sued anyone yet. But that doesn't mean consumers are free to defraud big corporations.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Depends on how much $$$ they can recover from the lawsuit. If the scammer has deep pockets, it could be worth it to send a message. If the scammer is broke, I agree the lawsuit would be pointless. The lawsuit isn't just about reversing the contract. The reputational damages could be extraordinary.

But even winning the lawsuit wouldn't fix the reputational damage, and this is assuming the lawsuit is even quick and simple to win. (It probably wouldn't be.)

In fact it would exacerbate the reputational damage. Not only would potential/current customers be alerted to a security breach (a series of security breaches?), but they may even be reluctant to do business because they don't want to be dragged into an expensive lawsuit if, say, questions arise about what became of some chips they bought.

 

[Jimulacrum]

defraud big corporations

FTFY.

 

[BarbaraBooey143]

But even winning the lawsuit wouldn't fix the reputational damage, and this is assuming the lawsuit is even quick and simple to win. (It probably wouldn't be.)

In fact it would exacerbate the reputational damage. Not only would potential/current customers be alerted to a security breach (a series of security breaches?), but they may even be reluctant to do business because they don't want to be dragged into an expensive lawsuit if, say, questions arise about what became of some chips they bought.

Ya, that is probably what their thought process was. But imagine the fraudster had 20M in the bank. At some point, if their pockets are deep enough, it can be worth it to go after them. You also have to consider punitive damages - the purpose is to deter future scams by sending a message.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Ya, that is probably what their thought process was. But imagine the fraudster had 20M in the bank. At some point, if their pockets are deep enough, it can be worth it to go after them. You also have to consider punitive damages - the purpose is to deter future scams by sending a message.

Maybe the "scammers" should take the corporate route and use that money to bribe public officials so they don't have to answer to anyone for their actions.

 

[ekricket]

However, the fact that they have made hundreds of thousands of dollars been "duped" multiple times, and never litigated, perhaps means they have willfully turned a blind eye?

FYP

 

[BarbaraBooey143]

FYP

I'm not privy to Paulson's internal business strategy. But they've made an intentional decision to not sell to consumers. I'm guessing there are compelling financial reasons for doing so.

Bottom line:

1) The contract is illegal.

2) Paulson is entitled to recover all of the secondary profits on the resale market from the scammers.

3) Paulson is entitled to recover any provable reputational damages caused by the scammers.

4) Paulson is entitled to recover sufficient punitive damages to deter future scammers from defrauding them again.

The fact that Paulson hasn't sued anyone yet means you are lucky. Not that what you're doing is morally or legally justified.

 

[ekricket]

I'm not privy to Paulson's internal business strategy. But they've made an intentional decision to not sell to consumers. I'm guessing there are compelling financial reasons for doing so.

Bottom line:

1) The contract is illegal.

2) Paulson is entitled to recover all of the secondary profits on the resale market from the scammers.

3) Paulson is entitled to recover any provable reputational damages caused by the scammers.

4) Paulson is entitled to recover sufficient punitive damages to deter future scammers from defrauding them again.

The fact that Paulson hasn't sued anyone yet means you are lucky. Not that what you're doing is morally or legally justified.

Well, good luck coming after me. I haven’t had anything to do with any of the Paulson chips.
Perhaps since you know about said crime and aren’t saying anything about it makes you an accomplice and liable as well? For even more damages since you willfully ignored this to the detriment of Paulson earnings?

 

[ekricket]

I'm not privy to Paulson's internal business strategy. But they've made an intentional decision to not sell to consumers. I'm guessing there are compelling financial reasons for doing so.

Bottom line:

1) The contract is illegal.

2) Paulson is entitled to recover all of the secondary profits on the resale market from the scammers.

3) Paulson is entitled to recover any provable reputational damages caused by the scammers.

4) Paulson is entitled to recover sufficient punitive damages to deter future scammers from defrauding them again.

The fact that Paulson hasn't sued anyone yet means you are lucky. Not that what you're doing is morally or legally justified.

Wait a minute….. is this chickenrob?

 

[cpac54]

This thread needs more pr0n...

 

[BarbaraBooey143]

Perhaps since you know about said crime and aren’t saying anything about it makes you an accomplice and liable as well? For even more damages since you willfully ignored this to the detriment of Paulson earnings?

Fortunately, that's not how the law works. The scammers are liable, not me. However, I have downloaded all the evidence on this forum. If Paulson hired me as an expert, I'd happy consult for them.