Why aren't 3D printed poker chips a thing? (2 Viewers)

[BGinGA]

At a microscopic scale, the surface roughness would also come into play, affecting macroscopic characteristics such as static and kinetic coefficients of friction between two chips.

Although a rough finish (however that may be defined, chip-wise) is not guaranteed to generate more drag or static friction between two chip surfaces. Sometimes it is decreased, due to having less chip surface material in actual contact (crosshatching, etc.) due to the 'roughness'.

 

[Jambine]

Ok, stop with the big words now.

@superchromix has it right. This simple graphic should clear it up for you

 

[buzzmonkey]

@TwoSevenOff

Outside of the materials discussion, another reason to not 3D print chips is because the shape doesn't benefit from the additive manufacturing technique.

In the picture you posted there is a benefit because you have openings within the shape that could be tricky to mill out unless you 3D print them or CNC cut them.

But a standard poker chip is just a normal slug/coin shape. It's faster and easier to mill or cast that shape, so 3D printing doesn't bring any benefit to the table.

 

[GianThaMan]

@superchromix has it right. This simple graphic should clear it up for you

That is unreadable for two reasons. One, big words, and two;

 

[Poker Zombie]

I'm sure nobody bothered to go to my previous link, so I'm going to re-post it here. It's off the sale thread from earlier this year.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10158084910421667

If these chips are supposed to be as slippery as "they" say, then there is no way that they should be able to stay together in a stack when rolled around and playing with their center of gravity. In fact, I wouldn't be able to take a barrel of them from the tray to even play with them because they should always explode everywhere as soon as I try. Being able to make a stable stack of them 100 high in a few seconds one-handed while holding a video camera with the other should be high-impossible because they should have immediately collapsed as soon as the barrels made contact, right? Because all plastics, by there very nature, play like shit?

Because these are all the hyperbolic statements that I always see posted about plastic chips, no matter who makes them, no matter who buys them, no matter who plays with them. Every time I see the same posts that apply the same prejudices to all chips with only a "I know best, take it from me" attitude. And every time I've tried to interject that there is even the *possibility* that there are exceptions among *certain* plastic chips, 95% of the time I've only gotten disbelief, derision, and trolling in multiple threads.

I have no idea why some people are trying to put words in my mouth, or attribute their strange interpretations of my opinions to me. I know that plastic chips are different than compression clay chips in terms of their characteristics. I have never said that plastics are perfect (whatever that is supposed to mean), or that they have any superior characteristics. I have only put forth the notion that high-end plastic chips should be *considered* as an option to collect and play with, because *sometimes* you may find something that is suitable for your needs, your likes, and your budget. I have no idea why this idea is so offensive that I should be subject to ridicule and trolling.

I have included samples of these plastic chips with all types of compression clay chips in my free sample packs, which is open for receipt by all members (not just newbies), so they can evaluate them for themselves and make their own decisions and judgments.

I have a set of custom ABS chips that I can stack 500 high, provided that I have a hard enough and level enough surface. Stackability <> not slippery. Being able to easily shift them around in a stack also indicates how slippery they are.

It sounds from the video, that you have a vested interest in selling those BJ chips, so your testing or your interpretation of the test may be biased. From a completely neutral viewpoint and in testing, plastics are more slippery than clay, and less slippery than cheaper plastics.

Again though, I point out that I like the high-end plastics. RT plastics, Matsui, and Bud Jones - I own sets of each. Storage space limitations are the only reason I'm not jumping on an Abbiati group buy. But I also accept that playing with massive stacks of them is more problematic if your table can be bumped or if you like to talk with your hands Italian style. On the plus side, they are easier to shuffle, tend to have more interesting edgespots, and I like the feel.

 

[BGinGA]

I'm sure nobody bothered to go to my previous link, so I'm going to re-post it here. It's off the sale thread from earlier this year.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10158084910421667

I actually did visit that link. The movement of the chips while sliding them around and the relative difficulty of trying to get a barrel to stack neatly merely emphasized their slickness in my eyes (one barrel even toppled over as you were trying to manipulate it).

If you performed those exact actions with clay chips (or even ceramics/hybrids) in filmed back-to-back actions, the major differences in inherent slickness between the various chip types would be readily apparent. Some of those swirling motions aren't even possible with some clay chips due to the higher levels of surface/static friction.

 

[allforcharity]

It sounds from the video, that you have a vested interest in selling those BJ chips, so your testing or your interpretation of the test may be biased.

I do realize and recognize this. It is unfortunate that I cannot eliminate this bias. The optics can really look bad, I agree.

But I'm trying to temper this by at offering as best quality as I can at the best price I can. I know these will never sell at the price of the best Paulsons, and I would never price it at that level. But pricing that puts it cheaper than some of the cheapest Paulson clays that usually get sold here? Maybe just a little above a new China Clay? That's not so unreasonable is it, even given its advantages and shortcomings?

 

[BGinGA]

It sounds from the video, that you have a vested interest in selling those BJ chips, so your testing or your interpretation of the test may be biased.

Not only biased test interpretations, but also biased posts in other ways.

When you were selling Paulson solids and starburst chips, there were dozens of your posts littered around the forum touting the advantages of inexpensive solid starburst chips..... which stopped and were replaced with many similar posts touting the advantages of inexpensive plastic chips (specifically the kind you happened to be selling). I suspect that when you start selling ceramics (or whatever is next on your agenda), they too will become the next best thing since sliced bread.

That "financial interest" aspect of your contributions may have influenced some readers and be partly responsible for the alleged disbelief, derision, and trolling to which you refer. Or maybe some (most?) people here just don't like plastic chips.

Perhaps I should post a few unbiased polls on preferred chip types to find out.

 

[allforcharity]

I actually did visit that link. The movement of the chips while sliding them around and the relative difficulty of trying to get a barrel to stack neatly merely emphasized their slickness in my eyes (one barrel even toppled over as you were trying to manipulate it).

If you performed those exact actions with clay chips (or even ceramics/hybrids) in filmed back-to-back actions, the major differences in inherent slickness between the various chip types would be readily apparent. Some of those swirling motions aren't even possible with some clay chips due to the higher levels of surface/static friction.

Agree, but does that difference in slickness actually make them *unplayable*? Is it really that difficult to make a stack of these chips? Wouldn't any stack of chips fall over if you pushed it beyond its center of gravity? And it's never "impossible" to do a swirling motion with a stack of clays. Certainly, it would require a little more energy with compression clays. And yes, I have compared these against the ceramics that I have (OWPS, I always assumed ABC blanks but now I think it may have been to early) and the clays that I have. Plastics more slippery? Yes, of course. To the point of unplayability because of inability to build stacks, move them, count them? Not nearly.

Plastic chips, especially BJ R4 (which I would say are more slippery than S2) are very commonly used for roulette, where the ability to stack chips quickly and stably, and move them along a felt surface is important. If these types of chips were the epitome of unplayability, why would they even be considered for a professional operation, much less almost become a standard choice?

 

[RudysNYC]

 

[superchromix]

Although a rough finish (however that may be defined, chip-wise) is not guaranteed to generate more drag or static friction between two chip surfaces. Sometimes it is decreased, due to having less chip surface material in actual contact (crosshatching, etc.) due to the 'roughness'.

That’s part of what makes friction so difficult to model at the microscopic scale, and why all of these physical factors such as surface energy, roughness, etc. are just lumped into empirical “coefficients of friction”, which are measured under some standard conditions.

 

[BGinGA]

does that difference in slickness actually make them *unplayable*?

Unplayable? No. You can also play poker with paper clips or M&Ms, and neither one stacks worth a crap.

So yeah, slick chips are playable. Just not enjoyable.

 

[allforcharity]

Not only biased test interpretations, but also biased posts in other ways.

When you were selling Paulson solids and starburst chips, there were dozens of your posts littered around the forum touting the advantages of inexpensive solid starburst chips..... which stopped and were replaced with many similar posts touting the advantages of inexpensive plastic chips (specifically the kind you happened to be selling). I suspect that when you start selling ceramics (or whatever is next on your agenda), they too will become the next best thing since sliced bread.

That "financial interest" aspect of your contributions may have influenced some readers and be partly responsible for the alleged disbelief, derision, and trolling to which you refer. Or maybe some (most?) people here just don't like plastic chips.

Perhaps I should post a few unbiased polls on preferred chip types to find out.

I have no "agenda". I have always maintained that I sell chips for profit (although I've sold plenty at a loss, too), and that any profit has all gone to help with my charitable fundraising operations. You can believe me or not. The only other member on this forum who knows the complete truth about this is @T_Chan , so if you're looking for corroboration from a trusted forum member, you can ask him.

Paulson THC solids (and other Paulson chips) which I have been occasionally able to bring for sale on PCF have never needed any particular "touting" by me, because everybody knows what they are. My ads do get long-winded, yes, but it's because I want to be totally up front about the origin and condition of all the chips I sell. I have *never* misrepresented anything, nor have I (to my knowledge) contravened any site policy, stated or implied, regarding advertising of my chips. And I'm glad that the membership has seen fit to give me the 3rd highest feedback rating on the site. And all of this was before/concurrent with the acquisition and sale of the Big Easy chips (in partnership with @Potsie1 ), because as an official Vendor I cannot receive any positive feedback for any of those sales.

I get that a lot of people don't like plastic chips. Some of that is from personal experience, and that's great, and I accept that. I'm not really here to change anybody's mind. But some people don't know because they haven't encountered them. And if all they hear is "all plastic chips are crap", especially from members with long histories and high post ratings and high reaction ratings, then they inadvertently develop biases, too. All I see on post after post after post from newer chippers about "what choices to I have", I only ever see people talk about China Clays, Ceramics/Hybids, and Paulsons. Plastics, high end or not, are never mentioned, or always put in the category of "crap". Well, it's my opinion that not all plastics are crap, and that people deserve a chance to give them a fair shot at evaluating them, because they just have a chance to use them to improve the experience of their game, at a price they might be able to afford. Are they the best? Since that's an opinion, then no, of course not, they can't be considered the best by everybody (and maybe not even anybody). Are my chips the best? For the same reasons, of course not. But at least I give them an opportunity to try them out, even compare them to clay chips, because they just might be "good enough". Is that so bad? Is the fact that I have chips to sell really so bad? Is the fact that I have samples available for people to try things out for themselves really so bad?

 

[TwoSevenOff]

OP here... Can we get back to the topic at hand? I think we were talking about which chicken sandwich is better... Popeyes or Chick Fil-A

 

[BGinGA]

Chick-Fil-A for breakfast, Popeye's for lunch.

 

[buzzmonkey]

Chick-Fil-A for breakfast, Popeye's for lunch.

KFC for self punishment.

 

[allforcharity]

OP here... Can we get back to the topic at hand?

I think when the technology improves, 3-D printed chips *might* become a thing. Perhaps then you'd be able to microdesign everything so that there would be appropriate texture and density so that it would meet or exceed all the physical characteristics that we would expect from a compression clay chip. But would it be cost-effective? And by the time it is available, would the idea of playing poker with physical chips be antiquated and considered "quaint"? Dunno.

 

[buzzmonkey]

And by the time it is available, would the idea of playing poker with physical chips be antiquated and considered "quaint"?