Might have been me imagining things the few times I’ve tried it. But it did felt forced
-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
Controversial Chip & Poker Opinions (59 Viewers)
- Thread starter Rieguy
- Start date
Marius L
4 of a Kind
Not sure. It does speed up the game, so if you enjoy the downtime between hands for casual conversations or whatever then that makes sense also.
I agree that speed is not necessarily the most important in a game, but to me it's high up there. I wanna see and play more hands if possible. Maybe I'm a dagen..
You're right it makes it more poker focused and less other focused, which I think is a good thing, but others might disagree.
We usually will have only one deck if we are like 3-4 people or less just because the next shuffler will be involved in a hand more often than not and it gets a bit stressful and annoying. For 5 or more it's good more often than not. Full ring absolutely as there is plenty of downtown anyways when two or three players are finishing up a hand and the rest of the table is waiting, talking, whatever.
If there are a couple inexperienced players the more experienced ones will always help them with shuffling and dealing if they would like us to. It goes for shuffling the next deck as well. For experienced players imo it feels natural and goes smoothly to just gather the cards and shuffle them a little bit while the other deck is getting dealt out. It doesn't feel like a chore or anything imo, more just like shuffling chips and having something to do with your hands.
Right. Maybe this is a controversial opinion:
I like shuffling cards! (once per orbit, of course)
I don’t mind either
The RPC chips are really….. meh….. they’re too perfectly chipper-chips. They’re so bright, have such fancy spots, etc. I actually find that I similarly am not too impressed by most of the other NAGB chips and I’m consistently surprised by the high prices they garner. I think there are some shining stars, I like the ES $500 and the AS T500 quite a lot (not the only good chips).
While not a NAGB I think the Chicken Coop chips are better but also suffer a bit from this but to a much lesser extent.
Maybe this actually isn’t controversial because I know I’ve seen others with similar sentiment but I’ve been seeing some RPC pr0n and it just doesn’t excite
While not a NAGB I think the Chicken Coop chips are better but also suffer a bit from this but to a much lesser extent.
Maybe this actually isn’t controversial because I know I’ve seen others with similar sentiment but I’ve been seeing some RPC pr0n and it just doesn’t excite
I think this makes sense. The chicken coop chips were created by a chipper to be his forever home game set. The RPCs were created by chippers probably to be resold at maximum profit. It was probably more important that each chip be appealing on its own - that it could be murdered to be the perfect addition to somebody’s set, than to create a cohesive, playable set - these things were made to be sold by the rack.
I’m not even just saying as sets, obviously (to your point) the RPC were never meant to be sets truly. But even as individual chips, it’s just way too much high contract V and 8 spots. The primary tournament are the best imo but they’re just lakeshore tributes so can’t go too wrong there.
I think the same about most of the ES chips. They’re either too muted or too vibrant, just don’t hit right. I think ESST is the most lackluster single “line” of chips from the NAGB and I’m surprised by the prices they garner.
CrazyEddie
Full House
I think the RPC chips are an outstanding realization of a design aesthetic that I don't share. A remarkable accomplishment well worth celebrating which I will leave to those who like them.
Poker is a game about making the right decisions. IMO, its purest form is when the stakes have no impact on your decisions. Some may argue the opposite is it's purest form so you can put max pressure on a player, but I don't believe this is a fair game.
"Friendly" home games shouldn't have 1000s of dollars on the table (even 100s of dollars doesn't sit very well with me). What's friendly about taking $100s from your "friends?" Thinking of losses as an "entertainment/night out expense" doesn't make sense to me. It's an excuse winning players can tell the fish, or an excuse degenerate gamblers can use to feed their addiction. I can play poker for no money and be entertained. What I can't do without 100s of dollars is go out to a cirque du Soleil show, buy a nice dinner, or buy a plane ticket to a PCF meetup.
Maybe I'm too cheap and too logical...
"Friendly" home games shouldn't have 1000s of dollars on the table (even 100s of dollars doesn't sit very well with me). What's friendly about taking $100s from your "friends?" Thinking of losses as an "entertainment/night out expense" doesn't make sense to me. It's an excuse winning players can tell the fish, or an excuse degenerate gamblers can use to feed their addiction. I can play poker for no money and be entertained. What I can't do without 100s of dollars is go out to a cirque du Soleil show, buy a nice dinner, or buy a plane ticket to a PCF meetup.
Maybe I'm too cheap and too logical...
Mandos
3 of a Kind
Early in my poker journey I actually did play for no money a few times. The issue was that with nothing to lose, some of those playing didn't care enough to bother even attempting to make the "right decision", thus ruining the game. One could argue that at too low of stakes the same thing can happen: if you were to play .01/.02, I could see the stakes having a reverse impact on decisions - they're so low that no one ever feels like they should fold.
That's also why I found playing tournaments a better exercise as I learned - since the chips have no monetary value, the stakes no longer have an effect on your decision, the only question is whether this is the right call in the context of the tournament.
100%. It's about the social aspect for me. I'm very competitive to the point that I'm going to try and win as many chips off of the other players, but I'm just as happy playing for nickels as I would for higher stakes.
As soon as the buy ins approach three figures for me, it becomes less about having fun and the game isn't social anymore, even if among friends.
Edit: But yes, we do play for money in my group of friends, but only enough to keep people engaged and making good decisions in the scope of the game, just enough so the more well off players don't play any two and play bingo post flop.
OP
OP
The RPCs truly have a lot of stunners, but like all relabel sets primarily made up of NAGB chips, it all depends on how they fit together. I think the overall opinion as to them would also be more favorable if we saw more of these "unique" sets together or actually in play (stacks/splashed pots), instead of the usual clump of them on a countertop where little contrast is actually visible or it is the typical original lineup(s). I still like the latter likely more than most, but I certainly understand the opinions on the other side.
Last edited:
I have sworn off all NAGB and similar provenance chips.
Yes, me too.
Then I played with some of the 43mms . . .
Here's a few of mine:
- Dealer buttons are a must have for any home game.
- Dealer buttons should be WHITE with "DEALER" written on it. It should be made of gliding plastic.
- The T500/T1000 jump is horrible for chip breakdown and playability. T2K instead of T1K is a far better option to me. T10K instead of T5K to go with it, obviously.
- Max number of players per table should never exceed 8 players for NLHE and 7 for MIXED. 6 is better for both.
- Limit games with 1chip/2chip are way less fun and should be avoided if possible.
- There should never be a stack being blinded out for late arrival in tourneys.
- Anyone who plays in self dealt home games should put some effort in leaning how to properly shuffle the decks.
- Shuffle behind >>>>>>> Shuffle ahead.
- Button straddle should NEVER have the SB acting first, rather, UTG should act first.
- I like my cup holders to be on the playing surface instead of on the rail. Yes, I might be the only person on the planet who thinks that.
- Stacks should always be arrange in a way the other players can get an easy count.
- Always two decks.
- 25¢ >>>>>>> 50¢ (if fracs are part of the game)
- Mixed games are getting out of hand to a point of them becoming boring to me.
- Rule number one of home games: "Thou shall not be an asshole" is too frequently broken. It should never be!
I'm feeling grumpy this morning, lol! So my apologies.
- Dealer buttons are a must have for any home game.
- Dealer buttons should be WHITE with "DEALER" written on it. It should be made of gliding plastic.
- The T500/T1000 jump is horrible for chip breakdown and playability. T2K instead of T1K is a far better option to me. T10K instead of T5K to go with it, obviously.
- Max number of players per table should never exceed 8 players for NLHE and 7 for MIXED. 6 is better for both.
- Limit games with 1chip/2chip are way less fun and should be avoided if possible.
- There should never be a stack being blinded out for late arrival in tourneys.
- Anyone who plays in self dealt home games should put some effort in leaning how to properly shuffle the decks.
- Shuffle behind >>>>>>> Shuffle ahead.
- Button straddle should NEVER have the SB acting first, rather, UTG should act first.
- I like my cup holders to be on the playing surface instead of on the rail. Yes, I might be the only person on the planet who thinks that.
- Stacks should always be arrange in a way the other players can get an easy count.
- Always two decks.
- 25¢ >>>>>>> 50¢ (if fracs are part of the game)
- Mixed games are getting out of hand to a point of them becoming boring to me.
- Rule number one of home games: "Thou shall not be an asshole" is too frequently broken. It should never be!
I'm feeling grumpy this morning, lol! So my apologies.
I thought I had... but now I have 600 of them awaiting labels...
I’m gonna take another look at what CPC can do for me. Because they can for sure do it cheaper.
Oh, I was supposed to post a controversial opinion:
Regarding the quality of clay they’re using to make chips today: CPC = PAULSON. This is not to say they’re the same, and people are certainly entitled to their personal preferences. But based on feel alone, one is not better than the other.
CrazyEddie
Full House
I agree with @SteveEH - I don't play poker to try to earn money, I play it for the entertainment, sportsmanship, and social engagement, and accordingly playing for stakes that apply financial pressure to the players is a bad idea IMHO.
But I also agree with @Mandos - poker can't be the sort of competitive sporting activity that @SteveEH and I would like it to be if the stakes aren't of some value to the players, such that the players are trying very hard to maximize their winnings; otherwise, they'll be exceptionally poor players (because the structure of poker inherently encourages bad players to play poorly while thinking they're good because they aren't paying adequate attention to their long-term win rates) and the games will be profitable but uninteresting.
But I'll go even further and say that the stakes should be high enough that winning is exciting and losing is painful. To a certain degree this goes against @SteveEH's thesis, that financial pressure affecting a player's decisions in the game degrades the purity of it as a game. But I'm sticking with my assertion on aesthetic grounds, and here's why:
Every friendly, competitive board game falls apart if the players aren't trying to win and aren't applying their skills. The stakes in any game - whether poker or bridge, whether money or pride - have to be enough to take the game seriously or the game won't be fun. Even if playing just to see who wins, the players have to agree that the outcome matters, that who wins is important, even with absolutely nothing at stake other than the game itself. Poker is not unique in this regard.
What makes poker unique among games is that it is not a game of cards, it is a game of money. Players don't play using their cards, they play using their wagers. It's a game of bluffing and a game of daring, where you declare your intentions to risk something of value and you dare the other players to do the same. Game historians classify poker as "a vying game" and there are very few others in that same class. Even other games played for money such as backgammon or blackjack don't have this vying aspect, where whoever is the most willing to put their money at risk is the one who most often takes the prize.
In other words, poker is one of the very few games that's ideally suited to playing for money, and accordingly, from an aesthetic standpoint, I think that aspect should be embraced. And so, while I agree with @SteveEH that the stakes shouldn't be so high that financial pressure plays an undue role in the decision-making such that the sheer differential in financial resources makes the game unfair, I also don't think that the stakes should be so low that they are of no consequence whatsoever, wholly independent of their role in ensuring that the players take the game seriously.
I think that poker just isn't poker if you aren't excited at the prospect of winning a big pot because it's money and disappointed at losing a big pot because it's money. Winning at poker should thrill, and losing at poker should sting.
Why?
Just because.
But I also agree with @Mandos - poker can't be the sort of competitive sporting activity that @SteveEH and I would like it to be if the stakes aren't of some value to the players, such that the players are trying very hard to maximize their winnings; otherwise, they'll be exceptionally poor players (because the structure of poker inherently encourages bad players to play poorly while thinking they're good because they aren't paying adequate attention to their long-term win rates) and the games will be profitable but uninteresting.
But I'll go even further and say that the stakes should be high enough that winning is exciting and losing is painful. To a certain degree this goes against @SteveEH's thesis, that financial pressure affecting a player's decisions in the game degrades the purity of it as a game. But I'm sticking with my assertion on aesthetic grounds, and here's why:
Every friendly, competitive board game falls apart if the players aren't trying to win and aren't applying their skills. The stakes in any game - whether poker or bridge, whether money or pride - have to be enough to take the game seriously or the game won't be fun. Even if playing just to see who wins, the players have to agree that the outcome matters, that who wins is important, even with absolutely nothing at stake other than the game itself. Poker is not unique in this regard.
What makes poker unique among games is that it is not a game of cards, it is a game of money. Players don't play using their cards, they play using their wagers. It's a game of bluffing and a game of daring, where you declare your intentions to risk something of value and you dare the other players to do the same. Game historians classify poker as "a vying game" and there are very few others in that same class. Even other games played for money such as backgammon or blackjack don't have this vying aspect, where whoever is the most willing to put their money at risk is the one who most often takes the prize.
In other words, poker is one of the very few games that's ideally suited to playing for money, and accordingly, from an aesthetic standpoint, I think that aspect should be embraced. And so, while I agree with @SteveEH that the stakes shouldn't be so high that financial pressure plays an undue role in the decision-making such that the sheer differential in financial resources makes the game unfair, I also don't think that the stakes should be so low that they are of no consequence whatsoever, wholly independent of their role in ensuring that the players take the game seriously.
I think that poker just isn't poker if you aren't excited at the prospect of winning a big pot because it's money and disappointed at losing a big pot because it's money. Winning at poker should thrill, and losing at poker should sting.
Why?
Just because.
I hear you, my friend! That's why I put that on the controversial list.
Maybe it's because I've been playing mixed for way too long, idk... I remember a couple of years ago, in a certain meet-up, me and another member who should remain un-named (fantastic NLHE and Mixed player), were so bored with playing 5 hands an hour of games that were basically "let's everyone see who flops better" that believe it or not, we were considering starting a $1/$3 uncapped NLHE table. And that comes from someone who LOVES mixed games.
CrazyEddie
Full House
Time for some Kitchen Sink games! They're the opposite of who-flopped-better AND the opposite of oh-god-yet-another-NLHE-all-night session. As I've said elsewhere - they're dumb but they're fun and they're not nearly as dumb as you think.
If you say the word “wild,” I swear to god . . .
CrazyEddie
Full House
Here's a couple to get you started, and not a single mention of the W-word!
Active players can then trade cards freely. A player must give the same number of cards that he receives. After two players have agreed how many cards they wish to exchange, each should simultaneously select that number of cards from hand and put them on the table face down; then the cards are exchanged between them without showing them to the other players.
Trades continue until no more trades can be agreed. Then there is a final round of betting followed by a showdown, which is won by the highest hand.
After betting on the final card is complete, the players split their cards into a 5-card hand and a 2-card hand, keeping face up cards face up and face down cards face down. The 5-card hand must be better than the 2-card hand and each hand must contain at least one face down card. There is one more betting round, after which there is a showdown in which the pot is split between the best 5-card hand and the best 2-card hand.
Trees
Five-card draw variant; use blinds or antes. Five cards are dealt face down to each player, and there is a round of betting.Active players can then trade cards freely. A player must give the same number of cards that he receives. After two players have agreed how many cards they wish to exchange, each should simultaneously select that number of cards from hand and put them on the table face down; then the cards are exchanged between them without showing them to the other players.
Trades continue until no more trades can be agreed. Then there is a final round of betting followed by a showdown, which is won by the highest hand.
Cowpie Poker
Seven-card stud variant; use antes and bring-ins. The deal and betting are as in seven-card stud.After betting on the final card is complete, the players split their cards into a 5-card hand and a 2-card hand, keeping face up cards face up and face down cards face down. The 5-card hand must be better than the 2-card hand and each hand must contain at least one face down card. There is one more betting round, after which there is a showdown in which the pot is split between the best 5-card hand and the best 2-card hand.
bergs
Royal Flush
Lolbuttonaments
2K is fascist, fight me
6 handed 4 evah
AGREE COMPLETELY!
There should never be a tourney to begin with
Ok.
Hmmm..
What about 6th restraddler?
Blasphemer…
WHO BLASPHEMES!!!
None of these are controversial. You have failed the thread.
I agree with @Mandos and @CrazyEddie to a certain extent regarding "there needs to be some money involved," and I'm happy to play .25/.25 no limit, hoping no one wins or loses more than what it costs for a few happy hour beers. As @JMC9389 mentioned, keeping everything under 3 figures is a benchmark I like.
Back in the day I would always be saying "you're not playing right by open raising $5 when the big blind is .25 cents!!!" at my home games. One day I played at the Commerce Casino in LA where a dude shoved all in and re bought about 10 times in a row. I realized it was a good thing, I should keep my mouth shut and just adapt. Now I just accept that people play the way they want and adapt. Also around the same time as that trip to LA, me actually growing up and learning things like don't waste your energy on things you can't control helped. I remember playing a strategy game (Battletech for the other nerds here) when I was a kid and freaking out when one player decided to something along the lines of trying to hit a one outer on the river no matter what the cost. Those days are gone.
Adapting may not be as exciting as going up against experienced players that I can play "real poker" against, but the sad truth is...all I really need to be excited is a nice set of custom chips to fondle
Back in the day I would always be saying "you're not playing right by open raising $5 when the big blind is .25 cents!!!" at my home games. One day I played at the Commerce Casino in LA where a dude shoved all in and re bought about 10 times in a row. I realized it was a good thing, I should keep my mouth shut and just adapt. Now I just accept that people play the way they want and adapt. Also around the same time as that trip to LA, me actually growing up and learning things like don't waste your energy on things you can't control helped. I remember playing a strategy game (Battletech for the other nerds here) when I was a kid and freaking out when one player decided to something along the lines of trying to hit a one outer on the river no matter what the cost. Those days are gone.
Adapting may not be as exciting as going up against experienced players that I can play "real poker" against, but the sad truth is...all I really need to be excited is a nice set of custom chips to fondle
Bluegrass Poker
Flush
I disagree. The stakes are totally game dependent. If you’ve got a group of guys all making $250k plus then what is friendly to them is going to be much different than to a group of guys who all make $40k a year.
The issue to me is when you have a very mixed game and the $250K folks have the ability to push around the $40k folks because dropping a $200 buy in doesn’t phase them. I don’t want that in my home game. When I hosted cash games we were all in the same general income bracket so it didn’t matter.
Mortalpawn
Two Pair
On chips: I don't quite understand paying more for abused Paulson chips from a closed casino than it would cost to get a brand custom set of CPCs.
Yes, the Paulson's are a little bit nicer (I own a set of Pharaohs and an ASM/CPC set), but not so much that I would rather have the used/abused chips from some closed casino over a brand new set of custom clays from CPC where I can design them to my specs.
Yes, the Paulson's are a little bit nicer (I own a set of Pharaohs and an ASM/CPC set), but not so much that I would rather have the used/abused chips from some closed casino over a brand new set of custom clays from CPC where I can design them to my specs.
Marc Hedrick
3 of a Kind
I'm sorry, this has to be the stupidest thing I've ever read.
MrCastro127
Straight
Tilting to read
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
