Shuffle like butter? (1 Viewer)

Not trying to thread crap... but I think Gene from @ABC Gifts and Awards might be able to beat everyone with the bigboys! Lol
IMG_8162 (1) (1).jpg


In all honesty I don't think anyone is willing to chance stacking that high with nice THC Paulson chips... when it goes you are almost guaranteed to have twenty plus new big flea bites that didn't exist before hand!

Clay wears down, plastics do not. Saying "casino used condition" is a pretty wide range.
 
Ben8257 said:
.......In all honesty I don't think anyone is willing to chance stacking that high with nice THC Paulson chips... when it goes you are almost guaranteed to have twenty plus new big flea bites that didn't exist before hand!

Clay wears down, plastics do not. Saying "casino used condition" is a pretty wide range.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to do it with brand new mint Paulsins, but that isn't a realistic condition of chips that are used in actual play either.

I will be happy to do it with used JACK Cinci $1's which are THC's and used HSI's $5's which are RHC's and Bud Jones S2's tomorrow. Both of the Paulsons I am offering to use are pretty nice and would likely be nicer than most of what you would find in play in most Card Rooms or Casinos. I'm not worried about the chips or the results of the test.
 
upNdown said:
You’ll understand “shuffle like butter” when you feel it. Shuffling mint paulsons can be challenging, but they have a nice feel. Shuffling Paulson bike tires is actually difficult for me and I hate them. But nicely broken in, leaded oaulsons are a dream.

To give you an idea of condition, these are the butteriest chips I’ve ever shuffled. Not sure if the fact that they’re hot stamped is important. I think maybe it is?

View attachment 716325
Click to expand...
I have the chips that shuffle and provide the sensation that people describe. I just dont associate it with butter. Maybe i need to revist my relationship with butter to better understand why everyone continues to use the phrase.

giphy (3).gif
giphy (2).gif
 
I think the phrase has been shortened and modified, like many things in language in general. I have always suspected it was probably meant to be "shuffles buttery smooth" or "buttery smooth shufflers".

Who wants lumpy butter? That's just cheese.
 
Last edited:
A couple ways to look at it:

If the butter was the lubricant providing a low coefficient of friction between the surfaces you could sub in a low friction solid (at room temp) - shuffle like teflon.

If you're going with the inherent smoothness of the butter, you could sub in a different smooth material that doesn't turn to a liquid at body temperature - shuffle like satin.
 
JustDogbert said:
A couple ways to look at it:

If the butter was the lubricant providing a low coefficient of friction between the surfaces you could sub in a low friction solid (at room temp) - shuffle like teflon.

If you're going with the inherent smoothness of the butter, you could sub in a different smooth material that doesn't turn to a liquid at body temperature - shuffle like satin.
Click to expand...
@JustDogbert gets it....
 
davislane said:
The phrase "shuffle like butter" gets used a lot round here to describe the smooth sensation of shuffling broken in chips.

Im a visual person so my brain tries to visualise it and I keep getting an error. I keep visualising someone who literally has butter on their fingers shuffling chips and now they are all oily. Gross. The other visual I get is someone trying to shuffle those round discs of butter you get and thats no better.

So what am I missing here? Why do we all keep using this phrase? Is there something better to describe that sensation? Something a little less moist? Silky smooth perhaps?

Looking forward to hearing some different viewpoints on this. Would be great to find out the genesis of the description. Does anyone know the original butter lover?
Click to expand...
Shuffle like vegemite, then.
 
BGinGA said:
0% chance that I'd ever be using either one by choice.
Click to expand...
The OP is about "shuffling like butter" and at times gone on to stackability. You are now introducing an entirely different issue which is preference.

20 yrs ago when I was first introduced to playing with BJ S2's on a regular basis I hated them. Now, I happen to like them. Do I prefer them over Paulsons? No, but that wasn't the question.

You stated that Paulsons stacked better which just isn't always the case. Of course they stack better than dice chips, but that isn't what I am talking about.

I admire your knowledge about this hobby, but on this point you are off base.
 
BGinGA said:
Actually, a simple topple test with just ten to twenty chips tells the tale. Put two stacks adjacent and raise the platform at an angle until the chips topple -- I guarantee the clays will outperform plastics every single time.
Click to expand...
I took a bunch of pics and will post here. I did a few things:
To me stackability has less to do with how quickly a stack of 10 chips will fall over if raised to an angle and a lot more to do with how stable my stacks are when I stack chips 40 or 50 high. In my mind a much better test (and much more realistic of what might happen in an actual live game situation) would be to stack both brands 40 high and bump the table until one of the stacks goes down. A lot of you guys never play any sort of limit games so you never really have that many chips to stack, but to anyone that plays limit in a real card room with real chips they are going to want to stack chips a lot higher than 10 or 20 high. 10 high is a complete joke..... In a home game environment with limited chips I agree that it won't matter all that much and I also agree that your brand new Paulsons in your home game that never see much play will stack better than ones in a card room or casino that have seen a lot of action. With all that said, in a real card room with real chips Paulsons don't stand a chance and it isn't even close. I can stack my Bud Jones 200 high without too much trouble & with Paulsons I don't go over 60 or they are going down. At 40 or 50 high which are both common heights for people to stack chips in a limit game the Bud Jones are extremely stable and especially so when you have more than one stack. Paulsons on the other hand at 40 high are extremely wobbly and the top of the stack is going to wobble back and forth a good 1/2-1" and easily topple over with just a small bump of the table. I have played 1000's of live hours with both and there is no comparison. In a live game in a real Card Room with real Chips there is no way I am ever stacking my chips higher than 20 with paulsons as they are going to wind up all over the place, but with Bud Jones S2 I am confident to stack to 50 high without any problem at all and even then I can easily go multiple layers higher of 40 or what not.

Tests I did:
1) How high can I stack them without the stack tumbling down?
- Result: Paulson 60 max, Bud Jones S2 200 high - Clear winner BJ
2) BGinGA's test of 40 high and tip the table until they go down - Not sure when this ever actually happens in a game though?????? - Never personally seen this
- Result: Tie - Performed the test 2x and both times the stacks went down almost at the same time once with the Paulson's going 1st and the other time with the BJ's going down first
3) My test of stack em 40 high and bump the table until one goes down.
- Result - Did this test 5x and all 5 times the wobbly Paulson's went down first. - Clear winner BJ's

I know you and others don't want to hear that there is any sort of fault with Paulson's, but this is one area where they are clearly an inferior product with inferior handling characteristics. I am not saying that I would rather have BJ's for my home game or that BJ's are better or that I like them better or any of that. Don't get me wrong, I like the feel of a nice compression molded chip and the old world charm much better than any BJ, Matsui, Abbiati etc too. I am ONLY saying that in a real world environment if measuring only stackability & the ability of the chips to stack solidly and not topple over BJ's beat Paulson's hands down and it isn't even close.

Chips I am planning on using for testing

Not too hard to go 200 high with the BJ's. I have gone quite a bit higher with a little effort.

Paulson's @ 60 high is extremely sketchy. 5 or 10 higher and this one is going over. BJ's don't budge.

BGinGA's Test: They both go down almost simultaneously twice in a row.

My Test: Clear winner goes to BJ's in a very realistic scenario 5x in a row.
 
Nanook said:
I took a bunch of pics and will post here. I did a few things:
To me stackability has less to do with how quickly a stack of 10 chips will fall over if raised to an angle and a lot more to do with how stable my stacks are when I stack chips 40 or 50 high. In my mind a much better test (and much more realistic of what might happen in an actual live game situation) would be to stack both brands 40 high and bump the table until one of the stacks goes down. A lot of you guys never play any sort of limit games so you never really have that many chips to stack, but to anyone that plays limit in a real card room with real chips they are going to want to stack chips a lot higher than 10 or 20 high. 10 high is a complete joke..... In a home game environment with limited chips I agree that it won't matter all that much and I also agree that your brand new Paulsons in your home game that never see much play will stack better than ones in a card room or casino that have seen a lot of action. With all that said, in a real card room with real chips Paulsons don't stand a chance and it isn't even close. I can stack my Bud Jones 200 high without too much trouble & with Paulsons I don't go over 60 or they are going down. At 40 or 50 high which are both common heights for people to stack chips in a limit game the Bud Jones are extremely stable and especially so when you have more than one stack. Paulsons on the other hand at 40 high are extremely wobbly and the top of the stack is going to wobble back and forth a good 1/2-1" and easily topple over with just a small bump of the table. I have played 1000's of live hours with both and there is no comparison. In a live game in a real Card Room with real Chips there is no way I am ever stacking my chips higher than 20 with paulsons as they are going to wind up all over the place, but with Bud Jones S2 I am confident to stack to 50 high without any problem at all and even then I can easily go multiple layers higher of 40 or what not.

Tests I did:
1) How high can I stack them without the stack tumbling down?
- Result: Paulson 60 max, Bud Jones S2 200 high - Clear winner BJ
2) BGinGA's test of 40 high and tip the table until they go down - Not sure when this ever actually happens in a game though?????? - Never personally seen this
- Result: Tie - Performed the test 2x and both times the stacks went down almost at the same time once with the Paulson's going 1st and the other time with the BJ's going down first
3) My test of stack em 40 high and bump the table until one goes down.
- Result - Did this test 5x and all 5 times the wobbly Paulson's went down first. - Clear winner BJ's

I know you and others don't want to hear that there is any sort of fault with Paulson's, but this is one area where they are clearly an inferior product with inferior handling characteristics. I am not saying that I would rather have BJ's for my home game or that BJ's are better or that I like them better or any of that. Don't get me wrong, I like the feel of a nice compression molded chip and the old world charm much better than any BJ, Matsui, Abbiati etc too. I am ONLY saying that in a real world environment if measuring only stackability & the ability of the chips to stack solidly and not topple over BJ's beat Paulson's hands down and it isn't even close.

Chips I am planning on using for testing

Not too hard to go 200 high with the BJ's. I have gone quite a bit higher with a little effort.

Paulson's @ 60 high is extremely sketchy. 5 or 10 higher and this one is going over. BJ's don't budge.

BGinGA's Test: They both go down almost simultaneously twice in a row.

My Test: Clear winner goes to BJ's in a very realistic scenario 5x in a row.
Click to expand...
Not surprising that you selected worn, warped, and inherently more-slick Paulson chips to test. Biased results.
 
BGinGA said:
Not surprising that you selected worn, warped, and inherently more-slick Paulson chips to test. Biased results.
Click to expand...

I doubt that you can find Paulson's anywhere in any Card Room or Casino that aren't warped to some degree.....

I selected Paulsons that are in considerably better condition than most that I see in Card Rooms and Casino's across America.

I believe that selecting Chips that are brand new, as you suggest, would be much more biased and not at all realistic.
 
allforcharity said:
I remember performing the "stack at an angle" comparison, posting my results here, and getting nothing but grief over it.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what the results are it is a ridiculous test. No one ever lifts a poker table hoping to have chips remined stacked.

If you want to select chips based on how well they stack, a better test should be used to determine which chips are the best.
 
Nanook said:
Regardless of what the results are it is a ridiculous test. No one ever lifts a poker table hoping to have chips remined stacked.

If you want to select chips based on how well they stack, a better test should be used to determine which chips are the best.
Click to expand...
Unless you're looking for a test on how well they *stay* stacked, which is a much more useful characteristic in the real world.

Who cares if chips can be stacked 200 high, if they can't withstand sliding apart at ten-to-fifteen chip heights when bumped or otherwise jostled, due to absurdly low surface friction?
 
Without a graph or a pie chart I'm unwatching this. All I know is if I can even get a chip stack 20-40 high, I'm having a good night. In the end who cares? Nobody is buying plastics over Paulson's because they MAY stack better lol. Pointless argument, but hilarious the minutiae that goes on in this hobby :D
 
buffalojim said:
Without a graph or a pie chart I'm unwatching this. All I know is if I can even get a chip stack 20-40 high, I'm having a good night. In the end who cares? Nobody is buying plastics over Paulson's because they MAY stack better lol. Pointless argument, but hilarious the minutiae that goes on in this hobby :D
Click to expand...
You know what goes well with Pie. Butter!

I buy plastics over Paulson's because they feel better to my wallet! :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
 
allforcharity said:
I remember performing the "stack at an angle" comparison, posting my results here, and getting nothing but grief over it.
Click to expand...
In all fairness, most of that criticism surrounded the lack of process controls that prevented the collection of consistent results.
 
Last edited:

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

ArielVer18
I like Big Blind Shuffle
Replies
15
Views
865
Machine
Machine
QuackShack
Need help finding chips that feel a certain way (not grainy)
Replies
9
Views
653
PUN26802
PUN26802
N
  • Locked
SOLD Shuffletech Shufflers ST-1000 (Shuffle Tech ST1000)
Replies
18
Views
2K
tjwor
T
M
Deckmate 1 Guide
Replies
11
Views
1K
minedelta
M
C
$600 homemade cabinet for chips and Shuffletech (no significant skills necessary)
Replies
23
Views
2K
mcfilthy
mcfilthy
Back
Top Bottom