Extra Chips in ME?
 

I posted this in the other thread, but I thought it may warrant it's own thread as well.


If you take Card Players reported chip counts to start today and add them up, you get 88,226,000. If 8,773 players started, then we should only have 87,730,000 in play. The difference is an astounding 496,000!

Half a million in chips added since beginning of play? Even considering a couple extra players or the difference in running off chips, this seems to point to a lot of cheating...


Am I out of my mind?

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

Seems to me much more likely to point to mistakes in the CP chip count. Honestly, being off by <1% of the total doesn't seem that bad to me.

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

Card player #'s are APPROXIMATE.

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

someone also said in the other thread the WSOP was allowing some players who blinded off on day 1a to play again on 1d. that would account for some too...

half a million just seemed really high to me. maybe it was too much x-files in the 90's. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Am I out of my mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you just have waaaaaaaay too much time on your hands. LOL

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

Go Bruins. That is all.

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Go Bruins. That is all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've struggled with your avatar as well. We really should get together for drinks the next time you're in town - if for nothing more than the great [censored] talking which will no doubt ensue!

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

yea 100% cp

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

At one point, CP's figures were off by over $2m, (Richard Lee was listed as 5.275m instead of 3.275m).

When the chips are raced off, especially when the $1,000 chips , wouldn't that create a large part of the discrepancy?

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

CP has trouble getting the winner of a hand between 2 players right sometimes, so I would guess they would be off.

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

there was a $100 chip from the Horseshoe that was discovered at my table on day 1C.

take that into consideration for your calculations. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

If you add up pokerpages's chips you get:

$88,246,000

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

[ QUOTE ]
there was a $100 chip from the Horseshoe that was discovered at my table on day 1C.

take that into consideration for your calculations. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Cash or tourney chip?

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there was a $100 chip from the Horseshoe that was discovered at my table on day 1C.

take that into consideration for your calculations. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Cash or tourney chip?

[/ QUOTE ]

it was a tourney chip.

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

Every time you color up you "Add" chips to the tournament. 25's become 100's (+75) 100's become 500's (+400) etc... I'm sure the 2% comes from thousands of players coloring up over 5 days.

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Every time you color up you "Add" chips to the tournament. 25's become 100's (+75) 100's become 500's (+400) etc... I'm sure the 2% comes from thousands of players coloring up over 5 days.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me you're kidding.

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Every time you color up you "Add" chips to the tournament. 25's become 100's (+75) 100's become 500's (+400) etc... I'm sure the 2% comes from thousands of players coloring up over 5 days.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he is kidding.

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

He may not be kidding, but he is wrong...

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

BTW, there may be "extra" chips in play, because of the people with Day 1B starts who got screwed and blinded off on Day 1A. At least two of them were allowed to come back on Day 1D.

While each one should be counted as two separate players for purposes of accurate chip totals, who knows whether WSOP officials were that smart.

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

[ QUOTE ]
He may not be kidding, but he is wrong...

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he is correct...

Here is a supporting example, in very simplistic terms for all of you that have trouble following logic and would rather just flame the OP:

A three-table tournament (30 people). Each player starts with 8 green chips ($200). Therefore, each table has 80 green chips ($2000) in play.

The first ten players get eliminated, and one table is broken. From the broken table, 80 green chips ($2000) are distributed to each of the other two tables.

Let's say that 39 green chips ($975) is distributed to one of the other tables, and 41 green chips ($1025) is distributed to the other table.

We now have one table with 119 green chips ($2975) and one table with 121 green chips ($3025).

Let's say we now remove the green chips. At table 1, where we have 119 chips, 116 of the chips are colored-up to 29 black chips ($2900), and the additional 3 green chips are raced-off for one additional black chip ($100). Table 1 now has 30 black chips ($3000) that used to be green chips. (Btw, it's possible -- even likely -- that the green chips were distributed in such as way as more than three green chips were being raced off, but this is the simplest case).

Table 2 has 121 green chips, where 120 of them are colored-up for 30 black chips ($3000). Additionally, the one extra green chip is raced-off for one black chip ($100). Table two now has 31 black chips ($3100) that used to be green chips.

As you can see, the total number of black chips that used to be green chips is 61 ($6100), instead of the original $6000 that started as green.

Of course, it's POSSIBLE that the chips will work out exactly evenly, and no new chips will ever be introduced, but is is highly unlikely. Normally when you race-off chips, more chips are introduced, and the more tables that race off, and the more times you race off, the more new chips that are introduced.


-Aces

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

[ QUOTE ]
As you can see, the total number of black chips that used to be green chips is 61 ($6100), instead of the original $6000 that started as green.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right, but the greens haven't *all* become blacks. The repliers aren't disputing that there can/will be some inflation of the chip total in play, just the assertion that color-ups are 1chip:1chip and thus turning each individual 25 into a 100 gives you your inflation. (That may or may not bee what MrFizzbin meant, but it sure seems to be what he's saying.)

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

The total chips in pay at the Final Table, per Cardplayer, are 90,140,000; 2,410,000 more than the number of chips for the reported number of entrants (= 241 entrants).

Even if we assume 40 people from 1a played on 1d that still represents a 2.3% discrepancy. In AcesUp’s example, the inflation caused by chipping up was 1.6% of the green chips in play. If we assume the green chips were 5% of the value in play, that would equate to 0.08% overall inflation. Assuming the same numbers applied to each chip-up, 28 chip-ups would need to occur to get to 2.3% total inflation.

Anybody know how many chip-ups occurred, and what % of the total value the lowest denomination chips typically represent?

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

chipped away 25, 100, 500, 1000, then 5000 chips. lowest denomination left is 10k chips.

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, there may be "extra" chips in play, because of the people with Day 1B starts who got screwed and blinded off on Day 1A. At least two of them were allowed to come back on Day 1D.

While each one should be counted as two separate players for purposes of accurate chip totals, who knows whether WSOP officials were that smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably the best explanation so far. On my starting table, there were two stacks being blinded off for most of the day. One of them wss a player who they mistakenly gave the wrong starting date to, the other was an apparent no-show. Not sure how much of the first player's stack got blinded off, but at least a few K. If there were 100-200 such mistakes, this could account for the discrepancy. That, and the fact that some people probably added big chips to their stacks...duh.

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

My understanding is that if table has 5 odd green chips, they get one black chip. If they have 6 odd green chips, they get 2 black chips. This accounts for some discrepancy. no effect at the 100 color up. At the 500 color up, this effect is huge, as there can only be one odd chip, or no odd chips. Then, no effect at the 1K chip up. Big effect at the 5k color up, but I don't think that's happened, has it?

However, I have to assume that shenanigans have occured as well. People cheat at cards. It's what they do. It's what's been done for thousands of years.

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I posted this in the other thread, but I thought it may warrant it's own thread as well.


If you take Card Players reported chip counts to start today and add them up, you get 88,226,000. If 8,773 players started, then we should only have 87,730,000 in play. The difference is an astounding 496,000!

Half a million in chips added since beginning of play? Even considering a couple extra players or the difference in running off chips, this seems to point to a lot of cheating...


Am I out of my mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are forgetting about the "Dead Stacks", representing players who bought in but did NOT show up to play, were in play on the 4 Day 1's as those "Dead Stacks" were blinded off.

A fair number of these "Dead Stacks" belong to players with DOCUMENTED medical emergencies, i.e. illness requiring hospitalization and "death in the family". Those players received refunds of their buy-ins.

Those online qualifiers who were "underage" were NOT given refunds.

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I posted this in the other thread, but I thought it may warrant it's own thread as well.


If you take Card Players reported chip counts to start today and add them up, you get 88,226,000. If 8,773 players started, then we should only have 87,730,000 in play. The difference is an astounding 496,000!

Half a million in chips added since beginning of play? Even considering a couple extra players or the difference in running off chips, this seems to point to a lot of cheating...


Am I out of my mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are forgetting about the "Dead Stacks", representing players who bought in but did NOT show up to play, were in play on the 4 Day 1's as those "Dead Stacks" were blinded off.

A fair number of these "Dead Stacks" belong to players with DOCUMENTED medical emergencies, i.e. illness requiring hospitalization and "death in the family". Those players received refunds of their buy-ins.

Those online qualifiers who were "underage" were NOT given refunds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. If you had documentation of a medical/family emergency that prevented you from playing day 1a, were you allowed to play on days 1b-d? Also, did any uderage qualifiers attempt to get their money back?

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

I recall that Minh Nguyen (one of those blinded out day 1A), had actually moved his start day to 1D, but "accounting" didn't know that. I'm sure this happened to a few other people. Before yesterday's play started, there was about a 500k discrepancy in chips, I'd chalk up the additional 1.5m of chips to Card Player incompetence.

Last year, John Grooms had a post on RGP explaining why there was a difference in last year's Main Event.

Re: Extra Chips in ME?
 

Quiet Lion offers his take here.

quiet lion web page

Very well written and documented case for WSOP screwup.
 

Check this out...

Poker News Article

Re: Very well written and documented case for WSOP screwup.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Check this out...

Poker News Article

[/ QUOTE ]
See NVG

Re: Very well written and documented case for WSOP screwup.
 

What does "NVG" mean?

Re: Very well written and documented case for WSOP screwup.
 

News, Views and Gossip.

Re: Very well written and documented case for WSOP screwup.
 

So what/where is/was the Harrah's reaction?
Was a formal complaint ever registered with NGC?

Re: Very well written and documented case for WSOP screwup.
 

Still no reaction from Harrah's corp? WTF?