• 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!

Home game chips: Why denominate at all? (3 Viewers)

The "crew" - lol


259854

"Hey boys, sit tight, I have to go reply again - fold my blind"
 
@Taghkanic What are you trying to do?
Are you trying to defend your opinion? Nobody says that non denominated chips are wrong. You like them, that's great. Let's move on.
Are you trying to say that denominated chips are wrong? You might as well argue that spots are wrong, or solids while you're at it. You're just wrong.
Are you just in it for the argument? Mission accomplished. :tup:
Next up: Does anybody like beans in their chili?
 
QuiQuog said:
@Taghkanic What are you trying to do?
Are you trying to defend your opinion? Nobody says that non denominated chips are wrong. You like them, that's great. Let's move on.
Are you trying to say that denominated chips are wrong? You might as well argue that spots are wrong, or solids while you're at it. You're just wrong.
Are you just in it for the argument? Mission accomplished. :tup:
Next up: Does anybody like beans in their chili?
Click to expand...

Sorry.... there are no beans in chili
 
Taghkanic said:
Again, another retort retort which garners applause from the peanut gallery, but actually is completely off-point.

Those cards fail the basic usability test not because they are undenominated in the same manner as chips, but because you can’t peek at them.

Chips without markings can be identified easily by color—unless you have no memory or mental discipline. Not so those cards if you want to peek at your hole cards without lifting them off the table.
Click to expand...

Off-point since you've moved the target

Taghkanic said:
Personally, my eye finds denoms a little annoying: They clutter up the design with superfluous info, since I’m never going to sit in any new game for more than 90 seconds without memorizing the denoms instinctively by color alone... And I pretty much only play in private games where I can become a reg, so this is a one-time thing.
Click to expand...

Indices on cards clutter up the design with superfluous info provide by the pips. As stated by others, no indices cards were used historically, so indices are NOT needed. (The premise of your original post, albeit regarding denoms on chips, which are unequivocally not needed. Stated countless times throughout this thread.)

If peekability is your sole determination of utility, than I assume you insist on using poker peek cards? Minimum required surface of cards to be exposed in order to see your cards.

If only some level peekability is required between none and maximum, then we are talking about a matter of preference. The same as the choice to denominate chips, as stated by just about every poster in this thread. You simply seem to insecure in your own tastes to accept that you are in the minority, and have some irrational need to convince the rest of this forum that your opinion is the only one which is valid.

I hosted games for ~10 years with non-denominated chips. In those 10 years, my father never learned the values. Certainly you aren't so bold as to tell me my father is too stupid to play poker.

Playing poker with him is one of the few times I get to see him regularly, so certainly you aren't going to tell me that I shouldn't look forward to playing poker with my father because of his indifference toward memorizing chip values.

After upgrading chips and adding a design including a denomination (which, as I stated earlier, is much more appealing to me aesthetically), my father ceased asking me what the chip values were. Certainly you won't begrudge me making my father's playing experience more pleasant nor my experience as host/TD/player even a modicum less hectic.

Your original premise of need vs taste has been answered innumerable times, with near-unanimous agreement that denoms are not needed, so take solace, if you can find it in your tortured soul, that you won that argument long ago. It is a fools-errand you undertake, attempting to convince a single-poster even, that your opinion is fact.

I've approached this thread as troll-post since perhaps my second post, but I stuck around because I had some time to waste, and waste it I did. The novelty of your bloviations, however, has worn off and I will now retire myself from this buffoonery. Thank you to the OP and all other contributors for a highly entertaining thread.
 
259913


bigdonkey said:
Indices on cards clutter up the design with superfluous info provide by the pips.
Click to expand...

Again, I have to say it seems you’re being either obtuse or dishonest with these comments. I can’t tell if you’re deliberately misunderstanding, or else simply ignoring previous discussion. It doesn't really matter; I’ll try to reason it out with you anyway.

Indices did not introduce “superfluous” info over old cards which had only pips. That’s what I mean by an obtuse or dishonest argument. Indices were an objective improvement to the usability of cards. Once people started trying them out, card players everywhere saw it was better, and indices became a convention.

As noted at the link below to some history, adding indices served two important functions:

(A) Improved hand security, since it had been much easier for opponents to get a glimpse of your cards back when you had to lift cards all the way off the table to count all the pips;

(B) Quicker identification of your hand by being able to check your cards by only lifting a corner.

These key improvements are quite distinct from (A) the farfetched arguments about security and non-denoms, which almost never occur, and (B) not-very-convincing claims that denoms are essential to avoid confusion about values.

You never know what cards you are going to be dealt, so you have to check them at least once per hand; indices are useful every single hand you play everywhere. By contrast, you know from the outset of any game what the chip colors represent. You don’t need to verify color values every hand—you may only need to be told on your very first visit to a new venue. In a home game you attend 10-50 times per year, it really shouldn't be necessary.

It’s also worth reflecting that the use of indices required a period of trial-and-error and competition among different ways to accomplish them. (See pic above, which shows that not everyone did this the same way initially.) Standardization did not happen overnight, and players and rooms tried out various options—and presumably argued about which was better, just as we are here—before things became accepted as standard.

Even now, there is no consistent way for cards to be designed. Most follow a limited number of conventions (bridge vs. poker size, jumbo vs. blackjack vs. standard index). But there are also all kinds of non-standard decks (some with not-very-useful but attractive minimalist or elaborate artsy designs), decks for sight-impaired players, not to mention heated debates about two-color vs. four-color. You can even probably still buy round cards, which several manufacturers tried to popularize in the 70s and 80s without any success.

(I was in a store recently which had some very cool-looking cards for sale. But you could tell they were for once-a-year use by amateurs only—the cards were paper, and the design so overly-clever that they were effectively useless for the kinds of games people here host.)

The advent of indices also illustrates the way the game can change steadily for the better since its crude 19th century origins, both in terms of constantly making better design decisions and also taking advantages in improvements in technology, such as printing. Almost nothing about the way we play now is the same as 100, or even 50, years ago, except maybe that there are 52 cards, and two pair beats one.

Bottom line: A game with old style cards would be “possible,” but it would suck, and no one would tolerate going back to it. (Heck, from what one reads on other threads, people don't even tolerate brands of cards which are microscopically thicker or stiffer than what we’re used too.) But a game using chips without denominations is not only possible, but common, and it does not suck. As a designer, I believe it allows for cleaner and more creative label/inlay concepts.

You can disagree about indices, and about denoms. It’s not a matter of old vs. new, it’s a matter of “what works for my game?” I want poker to continue to evolve, not just stick with what is familiar. The question of denominations is of course a personal choice which is hardly obligatory, but one which (I’ve argued) should be unnecessary for high-end chips in home games, unless you hold very large games with a wide cast very inexperienced/casual players. Which is more like being a poker room manager than a home game host.

Honestly, I only consider it worthwhile to try to engage on this topic because (1) as noted way up in the thread, I’m working on a relabel project and thinking through these ideas, and (2) it illustrates key differences between relatively arbitrary conventions and truly useful evolutions of the game and its gear. I put denominations in that category, at least for non-casino, invitation-only games played among friends/regs. As a side benefit, it’s also illuminating and pretty hilarious to note which grown men on this board are eager to act like a junior high school girls clique, taunting and boasting about how they gossip about other members on private chats. (Might want to change your avatars to the cast of Clueless, y’all.)

Anyway, for much more detailed history on indices, see below, the source of this image.

http://collectorsplayingcards.blogspot.com/2012/07/indices-on-playing-cards.html
 
SeanGecko said:
“Updated report— a quarantine team has been deployed in hopes that the troll is contained to one area. Thank you for your continued assistance PCF citizens.”
Click to expand...
Taghkanic said:
View attachment 259913



Again, I have to say it seems you’re being either obtuse or dishonest with these comments. I can’t tell if you’re deliberately misunderstanding, or else simply ignoring previous discussion. It doesn't really matter; I’ll try to reason it out with you anyway.

Indices did not introduce “superfluous” info over old cards which had only pips. That’s what I mean by an obtuse or dishonest argument. Indices were an objective improvement to the usability of cards. Once people started trying them out, card players everywhere saw it was better, and indices became a convention.

As noted at the link below to some history, adding indices served two important functions:

(A) Improved hand security, since it had been much easier for opponents to get a glimpse of your cards back when you had to lift cards all the way off the table to count all the pips;

(B) Quicker identification of your hand by being able to check your cards by only lifting a corner.

These key improvements are quite distinct from (A) the farfetched arguments about security and non-denoms, which almost never occur, and (B) not-very-convincing claims that denoms are essential to avoid confusion about values.

You never know what cards you are going to be dealt, so you have to check them at least once per hand; indices are useful every single hand you play everywhere. By contrast, you know from the outset of any game what the chip colors represent. You don’t need to verify color values every hand—you may only need to be told on your very first visit to a new venue. In a home game you attend 10-50 times per year, it really shouldn't be necessary.

It’s also worth reflecting that the use of indices required a period of trial-and-error and competition among different ways to accomplish them. (See pic above, which shows that not everyone did this the same way initially.) Standardization did not happen overnight, and players and rooms tried out various options—and presumably argued about which was better, just as we are here—before things became accepted as standard.

Even now, there is no consistent way for cards to be designed. Most follow a limited number of conventions (bridge vs. poker size, jumbo vs. blackjack vs. standard index). But there are also all kinds of non-standard decks (some with not-very-useful but attractive minimalist or elaborate artsy designs), decks for sight-impaired players, not to mention heated debates about two-color vs. four-color. You can even probably still buy round cards, which several manufacturers tried to popularize in the 70s and 80s without any success.

(I was in a store recently which had some very cool-looking cards for sale. But you could tell they were for once-a-year use by amateurs only—the cards were paper, and the design so overly-clever that they were effectively useless for the kinds of games people here host.)

The advent of indices also illustrates the way the game can change steadily for the better since its crude 19th century origins, both in terms of constantly making better design decisions and also taking advantages in improvements in technology, such as printing. Almost nothing about the way we play now is the same as 100, or even 50, years ago, except maybe that there are 52 cards, and two pair beats one.

Bottom line: A game with old style cards would be “possible,” but it would suck, and no one would tolerate going back to it. (Heck, from what one reads on other threads, people don't even tolerate brands of cards which are microscopically thicker or stiffer than what we’re used too.) But a game using chips without denominations is not only possible, but common, and it does not suck. As a designer, I believe it allows for cleaner and more creative label/inlay concepts.

You can disagree about indices, and about denoms. It’s not a matter of old vs. new, it’s a matter of “what works for my game?” I want poker to continue to evolve, not just stick with what is familiar. The question of denominations is of course a personal choice which is hardly obligatory, but one which (I’ve argued) should be unnecessary for high-end chips in home games, unless you hold very large games with a wide cast very inexperienced/casual players. Which is more like being a poker room manager than a home game host.

Honestly, I only consider it worthwhile to try to engage on this topic because (1) as noted way up in the thread, I’m working on a relabel project and thinking through these ideas, and (2) it illustrates key differences between relatively arbitrary conventions and truly useful evolutions of the game and its gear. I put denominations in that category, at least for non-casino, invitation-only games played among friends/regs. As a side benefit, it’s also illuminating and pretty hilarious to note which grown men on this board are eager to act like a junior high school girls clique, taunting and boasting about how they gossip about other members on private chats. (Might want to change your avatars to the cast of Clueless, y’all.)

Anyway, for much more detailed history on indices, see below, the source of this image.

http://collectorsplayingcards.blogspot.com/2012/07/indices-on-playing-cards.html
Click to expand...
Did anyone actually read this book? I got to the 4th sentence. But I'm not smart
 
I like denoms as they eliminate confusion, but mostly because they make my home game look and feel more legit.

That said, I’m intrigued to find out how this thread goes, and I just know that this will end with people on both sides of this important subject growing in mutual understanding and admiration for the wide variety of tastes and opinions of our quirky little chipper community!
 
QuiQuog said:
@Taghkanic What are you trying to do?
Are you trying to defend your opinion? Nobody says that non denominated chips are wrong. You like them, that's great. Let's move on.
Are you trying to say that denominated chips are wrong? You might as well argue that spots are wrong, or solids while you're at it. You're just wrong.
Are you just in it for the argument? Mission accomplished. :tup:
Next up: Does anybody like beans in their chili?
Click to expand...
Now ask him "if a straw has one hole or two holes."
 
Also:

-Are brownies cake? (Yes)

-Did the new millennium begin Jan. 1, 2000, or Jan. 1, 2001. (2001)

Should anyone ever say “I wouldn’t step foot in that place?” (Good Lord, no!)
 
Taghkanic said:
Honestly, I only consider it worthwhile to try to engage on this topic because (1) as noted way up in the thread, I’m working on a relabel project and thinking through these ideas, and (2) it illustrates key differences between relatively arbitrary conventions and truly useful evolutions of the game and its gear. I put denominations in that category, at least for non-casino, invitation-only games played among friends/regs.
Click to expand...

Looking forward to seeing the mockups for the label.

For point 2, the same could be applied to any number of things in a friendly home game environment...plastic cards vs paper, solids vs edge spots, etc, which are conventions that that some may find useful for more than simply aesthetic purposes. Some people may find these conventions useful with their players, others may not. It does not mean that either view is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Poker Zombie said:
You've never really had chili then.
Click to expand...
Beans in chili is a relatively arbitrary convention, rather than a truly useful evolution of the soup. (Yes, I just called chili soup.)
 
Last edited:
Taghkanic said:
View attachment 259913



Again, I have to say it seems you’re being either obtuse or dishonest with these comments. I can’t tell if you’re deliberately misunderstanding, or else simply ignoring previous discussion. It doesn't really matter; I’ll try to reason it out with you anyway.

Indices did not introduce “superfluous” info over old cards which had only pips. That’s what I mean by an obtuse or dishonest argument. Indices were an objective improvement to the usability of cards. Once people started trying them out, card players everywhere saw it was better, and indices became a convention.

As noted at the link below to some history, adding indices served two important functions:

(A) Improved hand security, since it had been much easier for opponents to get a glimpse of your cards back when you had to lift cards all the way off the table to count all the pips;

(B) Quicker identification of your hand by being able to check your cards by only lifting a corner.

These key improvements are quite distinct from (A) the farfetched arguments about security and non-denoms, which almost never occur, and (B) not-very-convincing claims that denoms are essential to avoid confusion about values.

You never know what cards you are going to be dealt, so you have to check them at least once per hand; indices are useful every single hand you play everywhere. By contrast, you know from the outset of any game what the chip colors represent. You don’t need to verify color values every hand—you may only need to be told on your very first visit to a new venue. In a home game you attend 10-50 times per year, it really shouldn't be necessary.

It’s also worth reflecting that the use of indices required a period of trial-and-error and competition among different ways to accomplish them. (See pic above, which shows that not everyone did this the same way initially.) Standardization did not happen overnight, and players and rooms tried out various options—and presumably argued about which was better, just as we are here—before things became accepted as standard.

Even now, there is no consistent way for cards to be designed. Most follow a limited number of conventions (bridge vs. poker size, jumbo vs. blackjack vs. standard index). But there are also all kinds of non-standard decks (some with not-very-useful but attractive minimalist or elaborate artsy designs), decks for sight-impaired players, not to mention heated debates about two-color vs. four-color. You can even probably still buy round cards, which several manufacturers tried to popularize in the 70s and 80s without any success.

(I was in a store recently which had some very cool-looking cards for sale. But you could tell they were for once-a-year use by amateurs only—the cards were paper, and the design so overly-clever that they were effectively useless for the kinds of games people here host.)

The advent of indices also illustrates the way the game can change steadily for the better since its crude 19th century origins, both in terms of constantly making better design decisions and also taking advantages in improvements in technology, such as printing. Almost nothing about the way we play now is the same as 100, or even 50, years ago, except maybe that there are 52 cards, and two pair beats one.

Bottom line: A game with old style cards would be “possible,” but it would suck, and no one would tolerate going back to it. (Heck, from what one reads on other threads, people don't even tolerate brands of cards which are microscopically thicker or stiffer than what we’re used too.) But a game using chips without denominations is not only possible, but common, and it does not suck. As a designer, I believe it allows for cleaner and more creative label/inlay concepts.

You can disagree about indices, and about denoms. It’s not a matter of old vs. new, it’s a matter of “what works for my game?” I want poker to continue to evolve, not just stick with what is familiar. The question of denominations is of course a personal choice which is hardly obligatory, but one which (I’ve argued) should be unnecessary for high-end chips in home games, unless you hold very large games with a wide cast very inexperienced/casual players. Which is more like being a poker room manager than a home game host.

Honestly, I only consider it worthwhile to try to engage on this topic because (1) as noted way up in the thread, I’m working on a relabel project and thinking through these ideas, and (2) it illustrates key differences between relatively arbitrary conventions and truly useful evolutions of the game and its gear. I put denominations in that category, at least for non-casino, invitation-only games played among friends/regs. As a side benefit, it’s also illuminating and pretty hilarious to note which grown men on this board are eager to act like a junior high school girls clique, taunting and boasting about how they gossip about other members on private chats. (Might want to change your avatars to the cast of Clueless, y’all.)

Anyway, for much more detailed history on indices, see below, the source of this image.

http://collectorsplayingcards.blogspot.com/2012/07/indices-on-playing-cards.html
Click to expand...

Ok, I was gonna duck out, but since this is a measured/reasoned response I’ll bite. You say that indices add objective utility to the cards. This is true! But denoms also add objective utility to chips - this is simply a fact! You keep trying to claim that it isn’t, but it is. A good analogy you made upthread somewhere was having chess pieces with moves on them. Those would have objective utility as well. As a matter of fact, I have a set like that! They are great for playing chess with my kids! Now, most people would argue that chess sets are subjectively more aesthetically pleasing w/o moves on them, and since they know all of the moves anyway, prefer sets without. But, that calculus isn’t the same for everyone! If you often teach children, that utility might outweigh the design preference. If the moves are added to the pieces in a way that you actually preferred the looks of them, great! No amount of hypothetical arguing about who I should or shouldn’t play chess with would change that.

So of course this is all the same for poker chips. As mentioned (a lot), no one begrudges your preference for a non-denom chip. However, a lot of us like the utility offered by denominations, a lot of us like the designs, or both. Trying to convince us otherwise isn’t innovative my dude, it’s just being an asshole.
 
msuroo said:
Ok, I was gonna duck out, but since this is a measured/reasoned response I’ll bite. You say that indices add objective utility to the cards. This is true! But denoms also add objective utility to chips - this is simply a fact! You keep trying to claim that it isn’t, but it is. A good analogy you made upthread somewhere was having chess pieces with moves on them. Those would have objective utility as well. As a matter of fact, I have a set like that! They are great for playing chess with my kids! Now, most people would argue that chess sets are subjectively more aesthetically pleasing w/o moves on them, and since they know all of the moves anyway, prefer sets without. But, that calculus isn’t the same for everyone! If you often teach children, that utility might outweigh the design preference. If the moves are added to the pieces in a way that you actually preferred the looks of them, great! No amount of hypothetical arguing about who I should or shouldn’t play chess with would change that.

So of course this is all the same for poker chips. As mentioned (a lot), no one begrudges your preference for a non-denom chip. However, a lot of us like the utility offered by denominations, a lot of us like the designs, or both. Trying to convince us otherwise isn’t innovative my dude, it’s just being an asshole.
Click to expand...
I’ll take this one, @Taghkanic.

The people in your game need their hands held like children learning to play chess? I pity you.
 
I used to hate beans in chili. I can tolerate them now, in moderation, and I'll occasionally add a mix of different beans to my own chili.

I'm talking no more than like 10% of the chili by volume should be beans, though, and only quality self-prepared beans. If you're going to dump a can of beans in there, you may as well go the whole way and buy canned chili.
 

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!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

M
Tourney Home-game structure advice
Replies
5
Views
394
MoeRichard
M
C
Firebird lounge (home game designs)
Replies
1
Views
69
Lopii9
Lopii9
L
Hello All - New Member
Replies
8
Views
339
BottomPair7
BottomPair7
demax51
Nit game/bomb pot combo we tried at my last home game
Replies
10
Views
426
Rakrul
Rakrul
X
Angle fish at the home game totally baffled
Replies
18
Views
1K
Sammer
S
Back
Top Bottom