It's getting rather childish in here.
You are welcome to your opinions
@Old State, and you can play whatever games you like with whatever chips you like. No one is stopping you. But you are speaking out of ignorance with respect to how limit games are generally spread - and by generally, I mean that out of the literally more than 10,000 hours of live limit games I've played over the years at dozens of different casinos all across the western United States and a few other countries, I've never once seen a limit game where players bought in with any denom other than the workhorse chips. I personally never buy in for less than 2 racks. The only times I've even seen larger chips on the table in low stakes games is when a player gets paid out for a high hand with $100s or when players amass mountains of chips and they request to color up a few racks. In $30/60 and higher, some players will be allowed to have $100s/$500s, but even that isn't very common. In fact, every time I've seen a player move from another game who has bigger denom chips than what we're using, they are forced to color down (e.g., we are playing $8/16 with $2 chips and they move from NL with barrels of $5s, they are always forced to color down to $2s).
This "limit set" concept isn't something that a snobby group of chip collectors invented to bestow their chipping greatness upon the have nots, it's simply a reflection of how limit games are played.
I have no reason to think you're lying about your limit game in AC, but if what you say is true, I can promise you that it is an extreme outlier, and for good reason. Limit games were the only games running for a long time before NL became popular. Card rooms suffered when games didn't have enough action. One way to drive action is to make the pots look as big as you can. This is why $4/8 games are so common but $5/10 is almost never spread. $5/10 pots look tiny and players quit because they feel like there's no money to be won on the table, but drop the stakes to $4/8 and use $1 chips and all of a sudden the pots look huge. Players stick around and it drives more action. More chips = the pot looks bigger = more action = better games = more players = happy card room owners. Another reason, historically, that larger chips are often not allowed is because players could easily remove their winnings from the table if they colored up just by sneaking a $100 chip off of their stacks. This problem persists in NL as well of course, but historically this has been something that limit games have tried to prevent. But in NL, there's just not much you can do about it.
Anyhow, hate away all you want. But the fact is, this is just how limit games are almost always run. When we talk about "limit sets" we are referencing what it would would take to spread one of these games in the manner in which they are typically (>99% of the time) played. If I'm sitting at a limit game and there's only 1000 chips in the table, it's time to leave because the game sucks. Most games that I think are worth my time have at least 2000 chips on the table, and often much more than that.
So yes, I claim that a set isn't a "limit set" unless it has at least 1000 chips, and that's pretty generous IMO. Like I said, I'd want 2000+ personally. If you wish to spread a $2/4 game using a barrel of $1s and a stack of $5s for each player, have at it. You'll be making a lot of change, your pots will look small, and the game probably won't have much action. Just don't ask me to call your 600 chip set a "limit set". But that doesn't mean you can't spread the game however you'd like and still have fun.
.
