Wrote a paragraph two times and erased both times not doing it again.

Cliffs:

-People confused about chips

-Eastern Pa&AC use ugly TChips..someone mentioned back thread they looked like cheap home game chips

-Thought that 10 er so yrs ago when first saw them as well at Taj having only played cash

-The B has cooler looking ones with cooler colors similar to ROW & country that they use for higher buyins…Deleware Park has cool colors too.

-Right chip is def the fake

- Brand new chips have a flake (sparkles) in them. (the flake does come off on you a little when they are new new).

-Not a silver spray paint look like one on right




Which is it? Im starting to believe you just like to see yourself type.

Agreed

Agreed

The 3 chip pic I took originally with the bright silver hasn't been "confirmed" or "denied". I've been playing Borg series for 6 series now and this was not legit. Coincidently there was #chipgate following this ******ed attempt to defraud the event.

I just confirmed it.

Regardless of the camera pixel/light reflection theory, if that pic you took was legit, that chip on right is the fake

Period

If you're a poker pro (like sn suggests), you would know this

anyone remember the story of the experiment The Washington Post did years ago with the great violinist Joshua Bell? They had him perform incognito at a d.c. metro station and they filmed it and of the 1097 people who passed him only seven stopped to listen. No one notices great music at a subway station because it does not occur to them that this is where you would find it. He was essentially indistinguishable from any average Joe they pass by every day. for some players not playing this event who look at the picture of the 2 chips and ask "how stupid do you have to be to not question this?" it's pretty much the same thing. If you play in hundreds of poker tournaments and have never seen a counterfeit chip then you would be oblivious to its presence because counterfeit poker chips aren't supposed to be there. if you're not looking for it you're not going to see it

This is a decent analogy. Especially, if we are talking about recreational players and/or those that simply don't play a lot of live tourneys.

To add to this... If, as some say, that picture is 2 real chips (1 new and 1 old), it definitely makes it way less likely anyone would question a funny looking chip. People have said they got the shiny ones as rebuys. Obviously you aren't going to ask tournament staff if those are fake.

It's pretty bush league to play a tournament with same denomination chips that look so dissimilar to one another.

The chip on the right is not a Paulson chip as near as I can tell from the picture, and it isn't the color that makes me think it's bogus.

But the insert has the anti-counterfeiting measure in it.

I stake players. I'm an investor and player. This affected me x 8 in event 1 fwiw.

They were normal (1 1/2" ) chips, and not 1 3/4" chips?

They should have played it to the end and claim it did not materially effect tournament and they will try to identify the cheats. Much better PR move and cheaper.

Is this a serious point of view? Incredibly inaccurate if so.

not sure if troll comment or someone who hasn't read a page ITT

maybe I didn't type clearly. I was talking about possible cause of action against the scammers, not any action against Borgata. If scammers didn't break any criminal law (or one with no meaningful with jail time)... the only other cause of action would be civil.

For that Borgata (plantiff) could certainly claim that scammer's (defendant) actions effed up their business. but penalites for civil cases are financial not jail time.

you are also correct that Borgata' will likely take care of all players and not leave room for any but the most radical claims/lawsuits.

i.e. " I was chipleader and in final 27 and on a heater so pay me 1st place because I was for sure going to ship that thing". Timex as Expert witness for the defense explaining ICM to juries who think " I call your 50 and raise you 100" is a valid bet cause they see that on TV shows all the time

Anyway... Borgata will likely do the right thing because its their only reasonable and least expensive path forward and one that also best serves their customers.

P.S. plus with the recent DOJ messaging re: PokerStars... it sounds like the Borgata have some poker competition across the street sooner than we all thought.

Has it been confirmed that the chip-hand-outers were regular poker room employees?

I would guess, and bet alot, the answer is no. Im going out on a limb and say the menial jobs were given to the less familiar. They have pit dealers dealing poker from what Ive read/heard for gods sake.

@BorgataPoker: @LokeDawgWV Continuing to work w/ NJ-DGE/State Police who are thoroughly investigating this. We'll share info as soon as it becomes avail.

IMO golfnutt's almost right. If you think about it, having 1M fake chips out of 100M chips total is like having 1% more players enter the tournament and then chipdump. So a decent first approximation to settling this is to play out the tournament, settle out all the payouts normally, and in addition the casino should give each entrant 1% of their buyin back, paid for out of the house rake, of course. This reduces the problem to a chipdumping-type problem, which is much more benign.

Its actually a good plan for the casinos for future tournaments. They would need to identify the suspects before the payouts to get back the money. But a 1 percent add of chips to the field is not that big. They simply would need to make sure the cheaters are caught and hopefully before they are paid out.

If a player was ever caught cheating in an online tournament they did not stop the tournament. They took back his prize winnings and distributed it to the other players if they could.

Brilliant. Wp sir

Also a good observation.

is this real

you can't be serious unless you are legitimately braindead and can't see how 1m chips spread between 3-5 (presumably, could be more could be less) people is massively different than 50 extra people entering with the purpose of dumping chips

Logical except that (rumor of) 3 of 27 remaining may be involved.

Live casinos do not have insta-control of a players bankroll. Among other things.

Can we stop comparing live to online in this particular instance?

PtLou you are correct in noting that the statutes are written to protect the casino's from theft and not the patrons.

This ONE time (just once, I swear) I'm going to be non-cynical. I would assume the writers of the law envisioned two types of theft possible at a casino, and I can't say I blame them:

1) Patron Steals from Casino;
2) Patron Steals from Patron

The first is covered by the statute, the second is covered by standard criminal law.

I mentioned I'm not sure if this is a precedent setting case or not (NVG's hourly is just not high enough for me to start digging through caselaw, sorry guys). The question of "If one patron steals from another patron during a game of chance, what additional criminal sanctions are applicable?" is one that is only even possible since the explosion of tournament poker, which is an entirely unique gambling activity in the casino.

It could be one of these situations where the realities of the real-world have made the laws outdated. Again, unless I knew about any previous prosecutions for "theft" within tournament poker, I can't answer your question.

Hope that helps.

*where this refers to weight difference between real and fake chips.

No Wilbury. I think you were right when you suggested that the fakes could be painted real Paulsons due to the weight variations between different colors of real Paulson chips. I don't think the crooks were sophisticated enough to make fake Paulsons. This would be a ton of work that would have been squandered with the super lame paint job.

What about the picture makes you think it's not a real Paulson with a bad paint job? I know of no color in the Paulson palette that resembles silver spray paint. Unless it's a lighting issue, that is not a Paulson color. However, the mold design looks right for a 43mm (1 3/4") Paulson chip on the Inverted Hat and Cane mold. The chip in question has no inserts - that is the term applied to the different color "spots" on compressed clay chips (like Paulsons). The "inlay" of a real Paulson chip will have a mark that is visible under UV light (either a top hat and cane or the word "Paulson" in most cases). An altered Paulson chip would most likely have a sticker with no UV visible "watermark". To what anti counterfeiting measure are you referring?