[Sidepot]

Here is a chart detailing the participating voters favorite edge spot configurations:



Our thanks to the 21 ChipTalk members above who submitted their favorite edge spot configurations. Your input is greatly appreciated. When it comes time to offer a few sample chips of these heavier (9.7+ gram) Cigar & Snifter chips, we'll be providing them to all 21 of you for free. Thanks again for your thread participation.

So the favorite edge spot configuration by a wide margin was:



The 2nd clear winner was:



The next 8 finishers were all closely grouped together (see vote totals in the spreadsheet above). But, since we only need 7 more to complete our set of 9 (8 denoms + 1 non-denom), I'll use the top 7 for the set initially, and we'll let your discussions take over from there. So without further ado, here is the full progression (arranged initially at my discretion, but totally still up for discussion):

Winning Edge Spot Configurations (Initial Progression)

25c $1 $5 $25 $100


$500 $1000 $5000


NCV


Next Step: Discussion & Tweaking (~1 week, or thru May 16th)

Use this thread for comments and/or tweaks to the above progression (although I think Grath made a very valid point in the last thread)

"Progression" is a false construct. And because these chips will have denominations, any attempt at said progression would be redundant." - Grath

Let the commentary begin...

[Strange]

My initial thought was that the first three chips were in the wrong order if they are supposed to be ordered by complexity.

My order for those would actually be $5, 25c then $1, since the $5 chip is obviously the plainest.

In general though i'd suggest that they are all just too jazzy in general. I would have expected the 25c to be a solid, then a simple single colour edge for the $1 etc.

It currently looks as if we have a collection of $1000 chip patterns and we want to use them all.

So...my first suggestion - simplify.

[gpc]

The .25, 1, and 5 look odd to me. Would it be possible to rearrange the edgespots to 1,13,11 respectively?

[Sidepot]

Originally Posted by gpc

The .25, 1, and 5 look odd to me. Would it be possible to rearrange the edgespots to 1,13,11 respectively?

Yes, of course. Anything can be changed/reordered/added/subtracted. This order (and these edge spot choices) are really just a first pass based on the results of the earlier submissions of favorite spot configurations. That exercise gave us some information about likes and preferences, but it didn't really paint a final picture by any means. That's what this stage is about. Now we all have this information and can tweak at will. I encourage any of you to make your own progression and submit it here (but keep in mind the likes conveyed in the prior stage).

I personally feel the winning group above left out 3 great edge spot configurations, namely:



... and I think the #5 chip is ideal for a $1 chip.

[rolandshoffinc]

I would change around the following
NCV-13, $.25-3, $1-1, $5-11
There is a reason. The NCV has nothing in between the two edge spots(ncv)
The $1 with 3 is common for the $1.
I can't explain the others.
I would rather see the $500 with the same pattern as the $25 except with thicker inserts. (those two denominations and thicknesses are done on the Condado Beach chips and also the $1 configuration that I suggested)
I picked all but two of the edge spot configurations which does make me feel a little bit better about making chips for a GB.
We should definately keep this info in mind for the next GB.
Roland

[Sidepot]

To get things started off (and properly convey the intent of this stage), I'll submit an alternative progression (to that suggested by the vote) that I like:

25c $1 $5 $25 $100


$500 $1000 $5000


NCV

I encourage others to do the same, and comment on submissions. Collectively, we may come up with something - just figuring out how to get there seems to be the hardest part

[Sidepot]

NOTE: where possible, please post submissions with images, as it makes it easier to convey meaning. The naming convention for the reference URLs for the images of chips 1-18 are as follows:

http://www.buypokerchips.com/assets/13.jpg

Just substitute the number chip you are referring to for the "13" above.

[Sidepot]

Originally Posted by Strange

My initial thought was that the first three chips were in the wrong order if they are supposed to be ordered by complexity. (it's not necessarily supposed to be this way, just seems to be what some group members desired - Sidepot)

My order for those would actually be $5, 25c then $1, since the $5 chip is obviously the plainest.

In general though i'd suggest that they are all just too jazzy in general. I would have expected the 25c to be a solid, then a simple single colour edge for the $1 etc. (Good input Strange. On the idea of a solid single color for the 25c chip, this is something that I don't think we (Sidepot) would be willing to do as the 25c chip in a set is pretty popular in terms of sales. We want the cash game players to have as "fancy" of a set as those who use the higher and/or fantasy denominations. Additionally, if we ever add a 5c, 10c, or 50c chip to this line down the road, future flexibility calls for edge spots on all chips. As an aside, I believe the reasoning that casinos sometimes use plain chips for 25c and 50c denominations is for cost considerations - they're cheaper to make - Sidepot).

It currently looks as if we have a collection of $1000 chip patterns and we want to use them all.

So...my first suggestion - simplify.

(Last piece of commentary here. Our customers generally buy only 3 or 4 denominations, typically in consecutive groups (e.g. 25c, $1, $2, $5; or $1, $5, $25; or $100, $1000, $5000). Therefore, in contrast to a casino which utilizes a wider spread of denominations (and have a need to distinguish between them all at the same time), home game customers have less of a requirement for a progression from 25c all the way up to $5000. Aside from collectors who get one of each chip from a set and put them in a display frame, my intuition is that our customers will care much more about the progression and/or uniqueness of the 3-4 consecutive denominations they are considering buying. So try to think in terms of "If I were getting a 25c thru $5 set, would this work for me? How about if I wanted a $25 thru $500 set? Etc.

The take away here is that "Progression" may be a very eloquent solution when considering the design of a full "line" of chips, but it's really less important when you consider the practical application here, which is simply to make it easier for home players to tell one chip from another within their set of 3-4 consecutive denominations - Sidepot)

[JM]

Using Sidepot's progression, I made modifications to a few of the chips in the series, leaving the $500, $1000, & $5000 as they are. Here's my configurations for the other chips...

[mac40k]

Now I'm confused again. I thought the whole process of the last couple of weeks was to identify the edgespots that most people liked, which it appears in the OP of this thread are identified. However, Sidepot's subsequent post mentions 3 chips that didn't make the "cut" and another post proposes a progression that swaps these in. Now if we're going to open it back up to suggesting any and all edgespot combinations, how have we advanced beyond what we were doing for the last couple of weeks? I may not like all of the "winning" spot patterns, but they got the majority votes, so I say we just limit the discussion to sequencing this group.

As an alternative to using all of the winning spot patterns, I think people should be able to submit progressions that reuse some of the winning patterns and drop others. In other words, you can submit a progression of all the winning spot designs or suggest using a limited subset of the "winning" edgespots from the "palette" of spot patterns we've already agreed to, but not introduce other spot patterns at this point.

If I'm out of line, just set me straight, but I don't see how we're going to gain any traction if we allow people to propose progressions including non-winning spot patterns at this stage.