Jack casino Cleveland may be changing $1 already (1 Viewer)

[Rhodeman77]

I was talking to some dealers and they have requested that the $1 chip be replaced because of confusion with the $25 when in stacks.

This would be the second chip they have done this with in less than 3 years, the original snapper from the Horseshoe was replaced for the same reason.

Here is a pic of the chips, with soft lighting in the casino, it is very easy to get them mixed up.

So if you like these $1's that are practically new, get them while you can.

 

[DJ Mack]

So if you like these $1's that are practically new, get them while you can.

Or wait until they rebrand to "SQUAT" in two years and Jim discovers the old ones when he buys the whole lot again.

 

[jbutler]

I'd be shocked if they changed. Parx dealers (and players) have been bitching about the $2s and $5s getting mixed in stacks since the place opened and management doesn't give a fuck.

 

[Rhodeman77]

That may be the case. With a $2.50 to $500 chip the money difference is huge so it makes more sense. And I would guess there weren't that many $2.50 chips to replace.

 

[DJ Mack]

And sorry, but I'm not really seeing much to get confused over, even with low light unless someone is colorblind. @Rhodeman77 you beat me to it. I was going to say a $24 screw up is far better than a $497.50.

 

[shawn15p]

So glad they rebranded. I love their old chips compared to the new ones.

 

[Rhodeman77]

And sorry, but I'm not really seeing much to get confused over, even with low light unless someone is colorblind. @Rhodeman77 you beat me to it. I was going to say a $24 screw up is far better than a $497.50.

It is actually very easy to get them mixed up. This past Saturday after a guy went bust he pulled 4 $25 chips from his pocket and put them on top of the couple $1 chips he had.

He ends up going all in (on tilt) the way he slid the chips in with the $25's on top of the ones that only the sides were visible of the $1's it looked like he moved in for $150, not $102.

Next time I'm there I'll take a few pics with them in dirty stacks.

 

[moose]

In soft light I imagine the blue spots appear green.

 

[Ronoh]

Combination of bad lighting and funky felts throws everything off in the room since the transition (look at the shadows in the posted pic above). I have great eyesight and it's shockingly hard to tell if a card is red or black when peeking.

 

[mike32]

Why would a chip designer tempt fate in the first place by using what looks like the same color spots on the 1 and 25. Seems so easy to just pick at least one other contrasting color.

 

[Richard Cranium]

Last time I was in Cleveland I tried to buy a rack at 6 or 7 something in the morning after playing the entire night to throw in my bag and walk out with. Only cashier left had had 60 something in the cage to sell me, but not a full rack. I think she was being honest but what do I know. This was on the first floor, the poker cage was closed at that point. I should have taken them but I didn't want to take less than a full rack.

/I'mstoopidsometimes

 

[BGinGA]

I was talking to some dealers and they have requested that the $1 chip be replaced because of confusion with the $25 when in stacks.
This would be the second chip they have done this with in less than 3 years, the original snapper from the Horseshoe was replaced for the same reason.

Why would a chip designer tempt fate in the first place by using what looks like the same color spots on the 1 and 25. Seems so easy to just pick at least one other contrasting color.

I was wondering that too..... who the hell is designing these things? GPI designers, casino staff, or some third-party? Whoever it is, they are clueless.....

 

[bentax1978]

I'm not personally a fan of the $2 and $25 combo at MD live. On more than one occasion I've mistook one for the other while playing.

 

[krafticus]

I'm not personally a fan of the $2 and $25 combo at MD live. On more than one occasion I've mistook one for the other while playing.

Very common problem.
The bigger problem, as mentioned many times, is that they use the 1, 2 and 25 in the 1/2 game

 

[bentax1978]

Very common problem.
The bigger problem, as mentioned many times, is that they use the 1, 2 and 25 in the 1/2 game

Yeah, I didn't explicitly mention it, but it annoys the hell out of me that have those $2 chips in the 1-2 and 2-5 games.

 

[GoStumpy]

Honestly I don't see it... there's no green in the $1's, now I agree that they should not have used the $1's identical blue and yellow, but the green has to be obvious when stacked dirty.

 

[bentax1978]

Honestly I don't see it... there's no green in the $1's, now I agree that they should not have used the $1's identical blue and yellow, but the green has to be obvious when stacked dirty.

I haven't seen these specific chips, but in dim lighting, blues and greens aren't easy to differentiate.

 

[DJ Mack]

Part of the problem may have to do with GPI's practice of not reusing color combos and edge spots for different clients. Yes they have a lot of colors but in low light many look the same. The designers don't really have that many options to choose from.

 

[MD Mike]

Very common problem.
The bigger problem, as mentioned many times, is that they use the 1, 2 and 25 in the 1/2 game

I think the even bigger problem for me is that the advertisements for Live Casino always show dice chips on the tables instead of the real chips you play with.

Bugs the hell out of me and I mention it every time I see it on local television.

 

[beaver]

I think the even bigger problem for me is that the advertisements for Live Casino always show dice chips on the tables instead of the real chips you play with.

Bugs the hell out of me and I mention it every time I see it on local television.

I think must be some regulations about casinos using their real chips in advertisements. I've never seen it done, almost all of them use dice chips. Although I did see one advertisement using Paulson Classics.

 

[mike32]

I've seen ads for the Detroit casinos and they were using fun nite chips. Of course I mentally devised a plan to get a casino employee to sell them.

 

[DJ Mack]

I think must be some regulations about casinos using their real chips in advertisements. I've never seen it done, almost all of them use dice chips. Although I did see one advertisement using Paulson Classics.

You'd think that'd be on a state by state (province by province) basis though. But until someone mentioned it I don't think I've ever seen an advertisement with real chips either, not that I've been looking that closely.

 

[dew4au]

I think must be some regulations about casinos using their real chips in advertisements. I've never seen it done, almost all of them use dice chips. Although I did see one advertisement using Paulson Classics.

Agreed. It's likely for game security. They do the same thing here in Florida with the pari-mutuels.

 

[upNdown]

Those ones are the bees knees. Somebody tell Jim to head back to OH, and buy those ones!!

 

[bivey]

You'd think that'd be on a state by state (province by province) basis though. But until someone mentioned it I don't think I've ever seen an advertisement with real chips either, not that I've been looking that closely.

I remember an old Mirage ad that used their actual chips. Maybe a difference in state law, but I'm not in the know.

 

[DJ Mack]

Agreed. It's likely for game security. They do the same thing here in Florida with the pari-mutuels.

Right, because a counterfeiter is going greatly assisted by a non-closeup shot in an ad. Why, this might force him to go to the casino and rent a legitimate chip to do his dirty deeds. Not knocking you at all, just saying that if this indeed the reason for the regulation it's a pretty silly one.

Then again, as we saw with the Horseshoe proofs debacle maybe GPI claims some copyright/trademark on the edge spots and won't allow them to be used for advertising purposes?

 

[upNdown]

I wonder if it's something as simple as the casino not wanting to give stacks of live cash chips to a bunch of producers and actors and saying please give them all back to us when you're done?

 

[bentax1978]

I wonder if it's something as simple as the casino not wanting to give stacks of live cash chips to a bunch of producers and actors and saying please give them all back to us when you're done?

I am almost certain this is the actual reason. I'd guess some of those ads/promos might not even be shot at the actual casino. It's much easier (and less risky) to use prop chips as the vast majority of people watching the ads won't notice, nor would they care if they did notice. The few hundred people who would notice and actually care are all on PCF discussing the fact that they didn't use real chips

 

[dew4au]

Right, because a counterfeiter is going greatly assisted by a non-closeup shot in an ad. Why, this might force him to go to the casino and rent a legitimate chip to do his dirty deeds. Not knocking you at all, just saying that if this indeed the reason for the regulation it's a pretty silly one.

Then again, as we saw with the Horseshoe proofs debacle maybe GPI claims some copyright/trademark on the edge spots and won't allow them to be used for advertising purposes?

Hey, hey, hey. I didn't argue there was actual sound reasoning behind declaring it game security, I was just suggesting it was the likely conclusion of whatever dysfunctional government group made the ruling.

 

[BGinGA]

I wonder if it's something as simple as the casino not wanting to give stacks of live cash chips to a bunch of producers and actors and saying please give them all back to us when you're done?

I think this is pretty accurate. Any restrictive agency regulations are likely to involve how value chips/checks may be used (for wagering purposes), and don't focus on how they may not be used..... and I'd guess that the required security of the chips/checks in question probably isn't possible when film crews are trying to create advertisements. Game security in this case has very little (if anything) to do with counterfeit prevention, it's a matter of keeping those little pieces of currency protected.