Intuition tells me the totally average player, who loses exactly the rake, is going to be who makes the most from 45 extra chips.

I think there are two factors that determine the value of those chips: The FREQUENCY they make a difference, and the EFFECTIVENESS of the difference they make when they do.

The chips will make a difference infrequently for an excellent player, but that player will make excellent use of them. The chips will make a difference frequently for a terrible player, but that player will make terrible use of them. But I don't think these cancel out or compound, I think this product shrinks both ways.

Here's a thought experiment, which is just to intuit, not meant as hard logic:

Take the perfect player. He's psychic, knows everyones' hole cards, and his mind is the freakin' pattern mapper. His ROI is maximal, he gets first every* time. The chips do nothing for him.

Take the perfectly terrible player. He actually doesn't have a mouse, so he just folds every single hand. His ROI is minimal, he loses his entire buyin every* time. The chips do nothing for him.

I'm of course willing to see math that suggests otherwise, but until I see some justification that the math is working as it does in reality I give my gut some credit.


*Yeah yeah, a tiny amount of the time it doesn't happen. Kinda interesting... there can exist only one player with maximal ROI but there can exist seven with minimal ROI...