Where Have all the Chips Gone? (4 Viewers)

[upNdown]

FYP. wanna argue about it for 7 pages?

Sadly, I cannot. I preferred the Sunfly 43mm hybrids to their 39mm hybrids. But I’ve never handled the Tina 39mm hybrids.

 

[ekricket]

Ya. And part of what I've been saying is that people should embrace the creations of others regardless. Its sad that's controversial. Gatekeeping kills hobbies and communities.

Pretty sure @Tommy is very accomodating for all types of collectors here. The rest of it is up to you. People are going to like what they like and not like what they don’t.
Why can’t you just let people be people and why are you seeking validation so hard?

 

[ChaosRock]

Gatekeeping kills hobbies and communities.

And yet, that's what you're doing.

People should embrace the creations of others regardless.

How nice of you to say what people should do and not do! People are free to embrace whatever they think it's worth embracing.

Me simply curious about demographics

I'm sure you'll be our next Nobel winner. Proposing that a hobby that has people paying 3 and 4 figures for a poker chip set has a good percentage of people with above average disposable income is absolutely ground breaking!

 

[Eriks]

I'll mostly yield to that. There is a line between copy and tribute that should be walked. But when people design their own custom sets, too often have I seen them sneered at. There is a cohort here that seems to believe that if it aint clay it aint a real chip. That kills hobbies.

I prefer clay sets and now only own clay sets (I have sampled sets of pretty much everything there is before coming to that conclusion).

I really don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with the hybrids or any other cheap chips (apart from the copies). I’ve tried the hybrids, they’re nice and they poker just fine. I just feel that the availability of them makes them pretty uninteresting from a enthusiast/collector’s point of view.

Edit: I’m also neither rich nor terribly old (45). Was however lucky enough to get into poker chips before they went through the covid/WW price inflation periods.

 

[Minus]

 

[BigGrizz]

And yet, that's what you're doing.

How exactly am I gatekeeping by saying we should be more welcoming?

How nice of you to say what people should do and not do! People are free to embrace whatever they think it's worth embracing.

Okay. Then maybe just dont shit on others?

I'm sure you'll be our next Nobel winner. Proposing that a hobby that has people paying 3 and 4 figures for a poker chip set has a good percentage of people with above average disposable income is absolutely ground breaking!

Ad hominem

Also I really don't understand why people are getting so butthurt about, "We should celebrate lower budget creations as a community," and, "I wonder what the average age and income is around here."

 

[ChaosRock]

How exactly am I gatekeeping by saying we should be more welcoming?

That's not what you said. You said people should embrace all creations. That means if one doesn't, you're gatekeeping against that behavior. So it's actually the opposite of 'welcoming'. You're only welcoming to those who do embrace all creations.

Okay. Then maybe just dont shit on others?

More gatekeeping. I'll ask once again, why to you want to regulate what people should and should not do? You want people embracing all opinions, as long as it mirrors yours.

Ad hominem

Also I really don't understand why people are getting so butthurt about, "We should celebrate lower budget creations as a community," and, "I wonder what the average age and income is around here."

Not Ad Hominem at all! You're asking something that is self evident and trying to portray that as being clever. It's not. Also, how does the average age of the community impacts the OP question? The issue with going down the route of demographics is one can get biased conclusions and it's a slippery slope. Much better to focus on behaviors, like @ekricket tried to convey many times.

Also I really don't understand why people are getting so butthurt about, "We should celebrate lower budget creations as a community,"

Because people (or at least some people, like me) doesn't like to be told what to do and what is right or wrong by someone who is spilling moral superiority.

Also I really don't understand why people are getting so butthurt about "I wonder what the average age and income is around here."

Because we all know what is behind that question coming from someone like you.

 

[BigGrizz]

That's not what you said. You said people should embrace all creations. That means if one doesn't, you're gatekeeping against that behavior. So it's actually the opposite of 'welcoming'. You're only welcoming to those who do not embrace all creations.

Saying don't be a dick is gatekeeping. Sure.

More gatekeeping. I'll ask once again, why to you want to regulate what people should and should not do? You want people embracing all opinions, as long as it mirrors yours.

You have a right to be an asshole. Sorry for gatekeeping your right to be one.

Not Ad Hominem at all! You're asking something that is self evident and trying to portray that as being clever. It's not. Also, how does the average age of the community impacts the OP question? The issue with going down the route of demographics is one can get biased conclusions and it's a slippery slope. Much better to focus on behaviors, like @ekricket tried to convey many times.

So you've never had an academic interest in something? I mean... makes sense.

Because people (or at least some people, like me) doesn't like to be told what to do and what is right or wrong by someone who is spilling moral superiority.

Be nice = Moral superiority. Not setting the moral bar very high.

Because we all know what is behind that question coming from someone like you.

Like you...? Wonder where this will go...

 

[ChaosRock]

My last engagement, one I should have know better not to start.

Saying don't be a dick is gatekeeping. Sure.

Once again, you're changing your words to sound good. You're not fooling me, or anyone I hope. I never defended be a dick, I defended the right of a member of embracing or NOT embracing whatever creation, or position, they seem it's worth to be embraced.

You have a right to be an asshole. Sorry for gatekeeping your right to be one.

Oh, thank you for making my point! So it's okay for you to call me an asshole (for basically disagreeing with your position) but nobody else has the right to say anything that you do not agree or find moral inferior. Got it!

So you've never had an academic interest in something? I mean... makes sense.

I don't think you'd want to compare academic accomplishments, or professional ones for that matter. You'll regret it. But I'm not surprised you went there instead just making the point of why the age of the cohort is important to chips being locked out. If I tell you it's 33, 46 or 52, how does that impact the question of why "Chips are Gone!" question?

Be nice = Moral superiority. Not setting the moral bar very high.

Way too many times you're changing words to look good. Once again, I'm not surprised. You're telling people what to do and how to behave because you know what is right and what is wrong. My point is that, I for one, am sick and tired of people like you flex your moral superiority, regardless if I agree with the statement or not. Just do you and let people do themselves!

Like you...? Wonder where this will go...

It won't go anywhere because based on all your statements here and previously, you showed who you are.

 

[BigGrizz]

My last engagement, one I should have know better not to start.

Probably.

Once again, you're changing your words to sound good. You're not fooling me, or anyone I hope. I never defended be a dick, I defended the right of a member of embracing or NOT embracing whatever creation, or position, they seem it's worth to be embraced.

There is a difference between collective embracment by a community and forced approval by the individual. If you think someone's creation is beneath you, then just leave it alone. Let the community be positive towards newcomers.

Oh, thank you for making my point! So it's okay for you to call me an asshole (for basically disagreeing with your position) but nobody else has the right to say anything that you do not agree or find moral inferior. Got it!

Well, you're being an asshole. No one attacked you prior to you coming out swinging and unprovoked.

I don't think you'd want to compare academic accomplishments, or professional ones for that matter. You'll regret it.

*insert navy seal copypasta*

But I'm not surprised you went there instead just making the point of why the age of the cohort is important to chips being locked out. If I tell you it's 33, 46 or 52, how does that impact the question of why "Chips are Gone!" question?

Let me break it down. Older generations tend to have more liquid assets even at the same median income. This may be because their investments have grown or they've had time to pay off their mortgage and student loans. This matters in economics as older people have a higher on average consumption of luxury products when compared to those younger at the same income level.

Way too many times you're changing words to look good. Once again, I'm not surprised. You're telling people what to do and how to behave because you know what is right and what is wrong. My point is that, I for one, am sick and tired of people like you flex your moral superiority, regardless off I agree with the statement or not. Just do you and let people do themselves!

I've been arguing that people should let others do themselves. Shitting on other people is toxic. You are painting your moral compass as you being able to shit on whomever you want. I say that's wrong and then you are threatened by my, "Moral superiority." That says much more about you than me sir.

It won't go anywhere because based on all your statements here and previously, you showed who you are.

Someone who is curious and who has argued that people shouldn't be dicks. If that offends you, those demons are your business and I wish you well in getting help.

 

[FestiveKnight]

That's not what you said. You said people should embrace all creations. That means if one doesn't, you're gatekeeping against that behavior. So it's actually the opposite of 'welcoming'. You're only welcoming to those who do embrace all creations.

This thread has gone to a stupid place but this fucking hilarious.

I won’t say more. But holy. Fucking hilarious.

 

[ekricket]

I’m not sure what the point is anymore.
Are you wanting people to accept that they are elitists? I’m fine with that, I earned it. I’ll lean into it because I earned it.

What are you then, so that I’ll know what to appropriately call you.
Superior than Elitists because you aren’t an Elitist? I’m not sure what that is.

I’m going to have to ask you to respect my rights to be elitist and quit bad-mouthing it.

 

[Lil Tuna]

Your entire argument is getting upset about people wondering about economic data...

In my case @BigGrizz it was more about timing. The only set of Paulsons that I own are my WTHCs and my poker group at that time thought I was crazy paying what I paid for my set then.

Didn’t even know about the hobby back then but just wanted some chips to enhance my regular game.
Becoming a collector of sorts was purely accidental but it all started for me because of this one transaction.

My demographics played no part in this unless being a regular “card player” is some sort of demographic.
Other than paying $2.80 per chip for a rack of 5000s a few years later to complete the tournament side of my set, I’ve got less than $1500 tide up in the only Paulson set of chips I own.

I never bought Paulson chips expecting them to increase in value, that was purely accidental in my situation.
Not sure but my particular case could throw off your calculations about Paulson Chip owners a bit.
I was 38 years old and working for a grocery distributor at the time of this purchase.

 

[GamingWithChips]

I won’t say more. But holy.

I feel the same way lol, I have so many things I could say but I’m trying to be good and resist that temptation. I’ve now learned it’s not worth it.

In my case @BigGrizz it was more about timing. The only set of Paulsons that I own are my WTHCs and my poker group at that time thought I was crazy paying what I paid for my set then.

Didn’t even know about the hobby back then but just wanted some chips to enhance my regular game.

View attachment 1668278

Those are sick chips! Before I knew about PCF I saw those chips and Dunes and I always through they were cool and classic. I’m jealous for sure.

 

[FestiveKnight]

My demographics played no part in this unless being a regular

Not trying to get myself branded as a villainous radical who respects statistics but…

it seems to me your demographic does relate to this particular case. As with eg the housing market, because the cost of things has only steadily outpaced increases in wages, being older would correlate with a time when generally things people wanted were more accessible.

Not for everyone, not all things, not at every given time. But as a general trend. Which is what big data like demographics cares about. I don’t know the guy but I doubt @BigGrizz cares about the particular financial situation of any one person here. General trends folks.

In 2010, a X quality chip set cost Y% of median income. Today it certainly costs a much higher percent. So yes, someone in their 50’s or 60’s, is more likely to have had the opportunity to purchase chips at a cheaper price relative to their income than anyone trying to buy chips today. So if someone is older and has a nicer chip collection, we can’t determine it is because that one person is older, but it might be a non trivial likelihood of explain why a lot of older chippers might have better collections

 

[GreatWhiteDope]

This thread was interesting up to about page 3. Now its just toxic. I thought I had a perspective to add to the initial conversation but seeing as how that conversation died a while back, I will go back to quietly sitting with my thumb up my ass.

 

[ekricket]

it seems to me your demographic does relate to this particular case. As with eg the housing market, because the cost of things has only steadily outpaced increases in wages, being older would correlate with a time when generally things people wanted were more accessible.

You act like these things, or anything for that matter, was dirt cheap back then. It was not. It was expensive and it hurt to buy things that were luxuries. The first fight me and my wife had was over whether we could afford a $1.39 jar of pickles. (We couldn’t) Our grocery budget was $20 for the week.
I’ll give you one thing - there wasn’t anywhere near the accessibility of ANYTHING that there is today. There wasn’t as many “must have” distractions that eroded our earnings. It was maybe easier to save because there just wasn’t that much to blow your money on - Disneyland wasn’t a must yet, cruises were still in their infancy, no cell phone (no$200 phone bills) no streaming anything (three channels, mandated by law), no Sirius radio, no access to fine wines, liquor was something you drank to get drunk, not sip $50 shots with a cigar, only two car makers, Vegas was the only place in the world you could gamble, no sports betting, literally nothing after dark to spend money on. Not even an automatic gas pump, the store had to be open.

Ahh the good old days.

 

[BigGrizz]

Not trying to get myself branded as a villainous radical who respects statistics but…

it seems to me your demographic does relate to this particular case. As with eg the housing market, because the cost of things has only steadily outpaced increases in wages, being older would correlate with a time when generally things people wanted were more accessible.

Not for everyone, not all things, not at every given time. But as a general trend. Which is what big data like demographics cares about. I don’t know the guy but I doubt @BigGrizz cares about the particular financial situation of any one person here. General trends folks.

In 2010, a X quality chip set cost Y% of median income. Today it certainly costs a much higher percent. So yes, someone in their 50’s or 60’s, is more likely to have had the opportunity to purchase chips at a cheaper price relative to their income than anyone trying to buy chips today. So if someone is older and has a nicer chip collection, we can’t determine it is because that one person is older, but it might be a non trivial likelihood of explain why a lot of older chippers might have better collections

Basically it all comes to this. If we could hypothetically measure the precentage of cost to income using chip prices and a median income level of the customer base (PCF) then we could actually quantify the elasticity of demand for the chips themselves. We could also then track inflation.

Can't believe I got people so riled up over this...

 

[FestiveKnight]

You act like these things, or anything for that matter, was dirt cheap back then. It was not

You wanna be at the smart kids table? You’re gonna have to play along with the rules of logic and precise use of language. Please quote my message and show where I said this.

 

[raynmanas]

Not trying to get myself branded as a villainous radical who respects statistics but…

it seems to me your demographic does relate to this particular case. As with eg the housing market, because the cost of things has only steadily outpaced increases in wages, being older would correlate with a time when generally things people wanted were more accessible.

Not for everyone, not all things, not at every given time. But as a general trend. Which is what big data like demographics cares about. I don’t know the guy but I doubt @BigGrizz cares about the particular financial situation of any one person here. General trends folks.

In 2010, a X quality chip set cost Y% of median income. Today it certainly costs a much higher percent. So yes, someone in their 50’s or 60’s, is more likely to have had the opportunity to purchase chips at a cheaper price relative to their income than anyone trying to buy chips today. So if someone is older and has a nicer chip collection, we can’t determine it is because that one person is older, but it might be a non trivial likelihood of explain why a lot of older chippers might have better collections

the housing market is a great analogy. so many of my generation with a "golden handcuff" interest rate of ~2.5%, sitting on a house that has typically more than doubled in value since we bought it. great for us, but kills the market while the younger generations wonder how they can ever justify buying a house (or a set of paulsons). so yes, age and timing has a lot to with it.

 

[FestiveKnight]

the housing market is a great analogy. so many of my generation with a "golden handcuff" interest rate of ~2.5%, sitting on a house that has typically more than doubled in value since we bought it. great for us, but kills the market while the younger generations wonder how they can ever justify buying a house (or a set of paulsons). so yes, age and timing has a lot to with it.

And it’s so much broader than just interest rates.

 

[Lil Tuna]

So yes, someone in their 50’s or 60’s, is more likely to have had the opportunity to purchase chips at a cheaper price relative to their income than anyone trying to buy chips today.

Well here’s some more info to shake up the calculations a bit. 3 years prior to making this purchase I went through a divorce and literally lost more than half my shit.

When the dust cleared I was left with just under 48k in a 401k, a paid off 96 Ford explorer and about $8k cash in my checking account.
Rented an apartment for about 3 years till I scraped up enough for a down payment on a townhouse in June of 09. The housing crash happened shortly there after but I wasn’t throwing my money away on rent anymore so I didn’t care that my property dropped 30k in value shortly after purchase.

I will admit I’m by far better off in many ways now than in those days but I’d venture to say my age has nothing at all to do with it.
I blame my situation now purely on my aspirations and my willingness to pursue them.

 

[ekricket]

the housing market is a great analogy. so many of my generation with a "golden handcuff" interest rate of ~2.5%, sitting on a house that has typically more than doubled in value since we bought it. great for us, but kills the market while the younger generations wonder how they can ever justify buying a house (or a set of paulsons). so yes, age and timing has a lot to with it.

Our first house was at an interest rate of 11%
My parents paid close to 16% on their first house

You guys act like you are the first people ever to face these kinds of hurdles.

 

[raynmanas]

Our first house was at an interest rate of 11%
My parents paid close to 16% on their first house

You guys act like you are the first people ever to face these kinds of hurdles.

i think you missed the analogy - sitting on those low interest rates has contributed to drying up the current housing market. just as sitting on paulsons obtained at a good price has contributed to drying up the current chip market. neither one has any reason to sell. that was my only observation, regardless of what interest rate you or your relatives may have paid in the past.

 

[Taghkanic]

Seems like like a lot of sets have hit the vaults and are not moving. Or am I just crazy?

 

[Lil Tuna]

i think you missed the analogy - sitting on those low interest rates has contributed to drying up the current housing market. just as sitting on paulsons obtained at a good price has contributed to drying up the current chip market. neither one has any reason to sell. that was my only observation, regardless of what interest rate you or your relatives may have paid in the past.

Why would sitting on a low interest rate or a set of chips bought at a low price be a bad thing? Especially if we like our homes and our chips?

Homes and chips still change ownership everyday, some of us got in when we did, some did not.
Timing isn’t always planned, you got to learn to go with what you’ve got. Sometimes those choices are the right ones and sometimes not.

People with a lower interest rate on a home and a nice set of chips they love and still enjoy can’t make others decisions for them.

That’s on them no matter what time it is.

 

[raynmanas]

Why would sitting on a low interest rate or a set of chips bought at a low price be a bad thing? Especially if we like our homes and our chips?

I did not intend to imply that it was. I think my post was a pretty neutral observation.

 

[curlyhead44]

@BigGrizz @GamingWithChips guys that dude is taking everything you say out of context, intentionally misrepresenting, strawmanning, etc... either he is trolling you or can't understand for some reason? Either way its not worth arguing, you know what they say

 

[ekricket]

i think you missed the analogy - sitting on those low interest rates has contributed to drying up the current housing market. just as sitting on paulsons obtained at a good price has contributed to drying up the current chip market. neither one has any reason to sell. that was my only observation, regardless of what interest rate you or your relatives may have paid in the past.

Oh shit sorry I didn’t realize we were back on topic. It changes pretty fast. I thought we were still crying about being poor.

Yes I think fear of replacement is very valid. It was easier when there was only a hundred or so members, but it gets much harder when there are hundreds of members.

The money for the early adopters is there, they got chips for almost free and can now sell them for a fortune. But it seems nobody needs or wants a fortune anymore.

There has more to keeping sets than just getting them cheap. Maybe people just like them. I do “collections”. You have to have 5-6 of anything to have a collection. I can’t tell you what the mystery limit is as to how many constitute a complete collection, it’s different for different stuff. Sometimes it’s because a set is pretty, or it’s affordable, or maybe there’s a need to preserve it or whatever - it goes beyond the money on why some stuff just doesn’t come up for sale. None of you could afford the stuff WW bought anyway, really his spree into the high end stuff provided funds to lock up a lot of the middle stuff. Same with free government money.

 

[TheChipVault]