600 chip limit set (2 Viewers)

[BGinGA]

600 chips for 8 -10 people is actually MORE than enough if the denominations are right.

Granted, 600 chips for a limit table can work, nobody disputes that.

But using more chips of a single-denomination value along with a 10x or 20x high denomination value chip makes the game play much better, for a number of different reasons already discussed (and all ignored/discounted by you).

And since you really don't know if it's true or not -- never having even tried it -- your opinion carries little weight.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Edit: @BG beat me to 2 of the 3 points I was going to point out.

Point 3: The luggage analogy is only effective if you compare it to a week of travel and pack everything in a carry-on. It can work, but using a checked bag and a carry-on is far more convenient. It may cost more, but when someone asks for a recommendation, I would never default to the cheapest - I default to the best.

The OP asked how to fill a 30 GBP carrier for Limit. My advice, a second 30 GBP carrier and 1200 chips. My limit game uses 2 1200 chip carriers, and a box with plaques as needed. Covers 2 tables. Could also cover 3 if necessary, but loses maximum efficiency. Not bad, just a step off of best.

 

[Old State]

Granted, 600 chips for a limit table WORKS PERFECTLY FINE, nobody disputes that.

And since you really don't know if it's true or not -- never having even tried it -- your opinion carries little weight.

Play better than what? Our game played perfectly. That’s some weird logic. Why would I add more chips when I’ve always felt the game played perfect fine with the proper amount? Aldo, as a frequent host and banker less chips are far more efficient for cashing in and cashing out people

Have you played $2/4 with a 20 chip buy in? How much weight does your opinion carry?

Can’t believe you admitted 600 chips could even work! 1000 chips is the “minimum”! The group think is very strong here sometimes.

This reminds me of an argument I read on a BBQ forum about 10 years ago where some people said you absolutely “can’t” cook a brisket over 250 or it will turn out like crap. Meanwhile people in TX, including practically every famous BBQ institution has been doing brisket at around 300 for 75+ years.

 

[weak]

 

[BGinGA]

fwiw, 'can work' /= 'perfectly fine'

Only way to improve anything is to be willing to experiment.

 

[WedgeRock]

And since you really don't know if it's true or not -- never having even tried it -- your opinion carries little weight.

This is really condescending.

I've never tried heroin. I guess I am not entitled to my opinion that it is bad. I must try it first.

 

[Cidertown]

Following to see who gets the actual very last word.

 

[Mac128k]

Play better than what? Our game played perfectly. That’s some weird logic. Why would I add more chips when I’ve always felt the game played perfect fine with the proper amount? Aldo, as a frequent host and banker less chips are far more efficient for cashing in and cashing out people

Have you played $2/4 with a 20 chip buy in? How much weight does your opinion carry?

Can’t believe you admitted 600 chips could even work! 1000 chips is the “minimum”! The group think is very strong here sometimes.

This reminds me of an argument I read on a BBQ forum about 10 years ago where some people said you absolutely “can’t” cook a brisket over 250 or it will turn out like crap. Meanwhile people in TX, including practically every famous BBQ institution has been doing brisket at around 300 for 75+ years.

I think what BG means (and said) is that more chips often will inspire more action. The game can absolutely run efficiently with less chips but I’ve found players willing to mix it up a little more with more chips in front of them even though the value of their stack is the same. I think you are both right.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I think what BG means (and said) is that more chips often will inspire more action. The game can absolutely run efficiently with less chips but I’ve found players willing to mix it up a little more with more chips in front of them even though the value of their stack is the same. I think you are both right.

...but if you were invited two different limit games, everything else being equal, except one gave you 28 chips in your starting stack, and the other gave you 100 chips in your starting stack, which game would you go to?

 

[arch3r]

You can more than just get by on 600. That’s kinda of like saying “you can get by with a carry on for a two night trip, but most would prefer to check 3 large suitcases”

Well duh, you need a case or 2 for chips.

 

[Poker Zombie]

...and the carry-on is poker.

 

[Darson]

I've never hosted a limit game but it doesn't hurt to be prepared!

 

[abby99]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've played limit games in both casinos and home games including games that I've hosted. A few observations based solely on my experience:

1. Players at a table where everyone has lots of chips seem to be having a better time.

2. IMO, it's easier to play the game with larger stacks of the workhorse chip. Why? Because you don't need to think in terms of dollars. With experienced players you rarely hear $3, $6, $9, $12, $15, etc. Instead, you hear Bet, raise, reraise or 3-bet, reraise or 4-bet, and cap. This is the same regardless of the stakes. Speaking for myself, betting is easier when playing with chips other than $1s, such as snappers in a pink chip game. When players are thinking in terms of units rather than dollars, the play seems faster and it really does loosen up.

3. When you're down a few big bets, it's less noticeable when playing with more chips. This is especially true for players who don't like to rebuy, like me. Also, from my experience, frequent rebuys do slow the game down a bit.

4. The need to make change is much less frequent, which is a factor in self-dealt home games.

5. Big stacks are better than small stacks. (My opinion)

It's unlikely that anyone's opinion is going to change as a result of anything that's posted ITT or elsewhere. Granted that some of us like to pontificate, but what else is to be expected in a specialty collector's forum like PCF?

 

[Old State]

I think what BG means (and said) is that more chips often will inspire more action. The game can absolutely run efficiently with less chips but I’ve found players willing to mix it up a little more with more chips in front of them even though the value of their stack is the same. I think you are both right.

I played with the loosest people this side of a Nevada whorehouse. The physical amount of chips would play no bearing. Also, even when slightly inebriated, I was always impressed with how most knew exactly how much was in the pot. Fewer chips makes it easier to see at a glance how much is in there.

With smaller amounts of chips people still think in bets vs dollars. In a $3/6 game 3 whites is a bet or call and a red and a white is a call or raise depending on what street you are on. It quickly becomes nearly automatic.

Maybe some players are the type to be psychologically influenced by chips on the a table but I’m certainly not and I don’t think any of my players were. Even now when I sit down and glance at a players stack my eye goes first to the color of the highest denomination chip to determine stack size....then to the lower denominations. I was under the assumption that most seasoned players did the same.

Also, again, I cant empathize with the whole “change” thing as it was a non issue and no different than what is experienced in a casino. I did and still do discourage splashing the pot. Most would simply place their bets in front of them and when the betting was over the dealer would toss any change over to a player and consolidate the pot. A three second motion...if or when it was needed.

For me simply playing cards as well as the table talk are 99% of the “fun”. The chips just add a very nice touch to the experience. The amount of chips at one game vs another wouldn’t even cross my mind...though I could definitely get annoyed with big sloppy pots and stacks

 

[Moxie Mike]

I'm going to share my experience, but I'm not trying to get sucked into an argument. FWIW I don't have a position one way or another as to which is better.

I run a regular $3-$6 FL dealer's choice game with a full kill on flop games. 4 out of 5 games called are split pot games of one variety or another.

For a while, I ran the game using 600 $1s and 200 $5s. When those sold out (which they usually did), I sold green chips. These denoms slowed the process of splitting and pushing the pot, especially multiway. And when the majority of pots are split, the effect was noticeable.

So I picked up some $3 chips to replace the singles and redbirds. The results were that limping and calling the early streets was as simple as flinging a single chip out of your stack. It's difficult to comment on the smaller physical stack sizes' effect on the action since our game is primarily populated with sophisticated players to whom a massive pile of chips has no visceral appeal. I can say that in our last game one of our regulars went off for 2 full racks, and the action seemed pretty normal overall.

So while I understand and appreciate as to why more chips = better for the game - and I'm sure there's plenty of merit there, personally I prefer using the $3 chips for their efficiency.

Requisite Pron:

 

[Poker Zombie]

I'm going to share my experience, but I'm not trying to get sucked into an argument. FWIW I don't have a position one way or another as to which is better.

I run a regular $3-$6 FL dealer's choice game with a full kill on flop games. 4 out of 5 games called are split pot games of one variety or another.

For a while, I ran the game using 600 $1s and 200 $5s. When those sold out (which they usually did), I sold green chips. These denoms slowed the process of splitting and pushing the pot, especially multiway. And when the majority of pots are split, the effect was noticeable.

So I picked up some $3 chips to replace the singles and redbirds. The results were that limping and calling the early streets was as simple as flinging a single chip out of your stack. It's difficult to comment on the smaller physical stack sizes' effect on the action since our game is primarily populated with sophisticated players to whom a massive pile of chips has no visceral appeal. I can say that in our last game one of our regulars went off for 2 full racks, and the action seemed pretty normal overall.

So while I understand and appreciate as to why more chips = better for the game - and I'm sure there's plenty of merit there, personally I prefer using the $3 chips for their efficiency.

Requisite Pron:

View attachment 280928

View attachment 280929

I agree that 3/6 is best with $3 chips, and 2/4 is best with $2 chips. Doesn't have to be, but it is.

My limit chips are non-denominated. Since I run a 50¢/$1 game on 2 tables, and a 75¢/$1.50 game on the other table, I have to use the chips as quarters, and rebuy chips as $5s. It plays like a 2/4 game or a 3/6 game, depending on your table, but for social stakes.

I also like chip pron. Limit set in the back.

 

[phaze12]

When I first started playing at Foxwoods, 15+ years ago, started at 2/4 LHE with 1/2 chip structure. Was smooth and quick. Enjoyed the game.

But my attention was quickly diverted when I saw the table of the 20/40 LHE game. They used a 4/8 chip structure and the sea of red on the table was breathtaking.

I think this is where my fascination with chips began.

But I wanted to playin that game sooo bad because of the chipstacks. Wasn’t uncommon to see players with 300/400/500 chips in front of them. (Man those were the days. Don’t see the game run much anymore ) So I worked my arse off to move up through 4/8 and 5/10 w/kill just to play in that game.

When I got there I didn’t think the 4/8 chip structure hurt the flow of the game at all. And it played much looser than any game besides the 2/4 LHE.

So either chip structure works. Just depends on what the players want/like. The only thing I wouldn’t like is playing 2/4 with red chips. To much change making for me. 3/6 is ok with 3 chip denoms tho.

 

[JustinInMN]

It makes no practical sense. Those games should actually be 4 and 4 chip structures. This is another reason why I like standard denominations.

So if you are saying 8/16 should be reds and whites 1/3 for 8 3/1 for 16 I think that is just inviting confusion if one means a raise and one means a call on the early streets.

All the same makes bets and raises more obvious.

With three racks you are not even using the majority of the chips.

I should point out 8/16 and 20/40 both have a rep for being loose games. 20/40 is noted for being aggressive, a lot of light 3 betting among the regs. Not to mention 8/16 is played with a half kill. Before the half kill came in I would only buy two racks for 400. I get the extra rack now to make sure I get max value in a 12/24 pot.

So yeah, it's not unusual to take a 300 swing in an 8/16 session, meaning half the chips.

 

[Old State]

So if you are saying 8/16 should be reds and whites 1/3 for 8 3/1 for 16 I think that is just inviting confusion if one means a raise and one means a call on the early streets.

All the same makes bets and raises more obvious.

I give most poker players credit for being a little smarter than that

I also don’t think the OP is playing games anything like you are describing

 

[JustinInMN]

also don’t think the OP is playing games anything like you are describing

Right and I have said elsewhere for one and two chip, 60 chips a player is good. I think a 600 chip set would work in this instance.

And I think home game limit sets don't need to match casinos.

But they should be big enough to accommodate using a single denomination. Part of the appeal of limit is speed, and using a single denom for betting is a key component of that.

 

[Old State]

Right and I have said elsewhere for one and two chip, 60 chips a player is good. I think a 600 chip set would work in this instance.

And I think home game limit sets don't need to match casinos.

But they should be big enough to accommodate using a single denomination. Part of the appeal of limit is speed, and using a single denom for betting is a key component of that.

It Is faster to throw a red and three whites for and $8 bet then eight whites. There is simply no practical way to justify it. It’s really all about “moar chips”. Just admit it.

 

[APatHand]

Mathmatically, you don't need any more chips than those needed to equal the sum of the buyins and rebuys less the cashouts.

Even with multiple denominations on the table it is possible to have "clutter", or so I hear.

 

[Poker Zombie]

It Is faster to throw a red and three whites for and $8 bet then eight whites. There is simply no practical way to justify it. It’s really all about “moar chips”. Just admit it.

More than a spartan amount? Sure. It's the same reason most of us don't like electronic tables, despite the fact that they are faster, and don't make errors.

Nobody is advocating 500 chips per player, although that certainly is moar, and would eliminate the need for rebuys. The sweet spot seems to be around 100 per player to start, but there is nothing wrong with more. You just aim a lot lower than the vast majority prefer. It may be a table space issue, it may be a clumsy player issue, or it may be a cost per chip issue, but we've all played in games with 100 or more chips to start and have enjoyed the game.

We don't suffer from those issues.

 

[BonScot]

I’m away in Spain losing golf balls so jut checked back on this after a few days and all hell has broken loose .
The phrase “light fuse then retreat to a safe distance” is appropriate.

Anyway after much deliberating in the case of @Old State vs Everyone else I have decided on the only suitable outcome... a compromise that nobody will be satisfied with.

I’ve bought a 1,000 chips set from @Saoliver which after some relabelling will be made up of non-denoms. 900 x smaller value and 100 x bigger value (which will be worth 20 of the smaller chip).

I’ll post a picture when they’re here and all relabelling is finished.

 

[BGinGA]

I’ve bought a 1,000 chips set from @Saoliver which after some relabelling will be made up of non-denoms. 900 x smaller value and 100 x bigger value (which will be worth 20 of the smaller chip).

I’ll post a picture when they’re here and all relabelling is finished.

View attachment 281582

Perfect. Enjoy your games.

 

[BonScot]

Perfect. Enjoy your games.

Cheers mate

 

[Mr Winberg]

I’m going to try and keep it at 600. I’ve just sold a bunch of chips to get some space back.

I’ve bought a 1,000 chips set

 

[BonScot]

View attachment 281628



View attachment 281630

My journey to the dark side is complete....

 

[TheBigTater]

I’m away in Spain losing golf balls so jut checked back on this after a few days and all hell has broken loose .
The phrase “light fuse then retreat to a safe distance” is appropriate.

Anyway after much deliberating in the case of @Old State vs Everyone else I have decided on the only suitable outcome... a compromise that nobody will be satisfied with.

I’ve bought a 1,000 chips set from @Saoliver which after some relabelling will be made up of non-denoms. 900 x smaller value and 100 x bigger value (which will be worth 20 of the smaller chip).

I’ll post a picture when they’re here and all relabelling is finished.

View attachment 281582

Middle ground met, great choice! That set should work out perfect for any limit & stakes, especially if with your relabel you keep them ND. Welcome to the limit club.

 

[Poker Zombie]

A solid choice. Dont forget pics when you get them relabeled!