megarises
Flush
yup, that'll do just fine.
yup, that'll do just fine.
When was the last time you visited the limit thread JoeAs a general rule of thumb for me, if more than 600 chips for a cash set is needed for a single table of play, then the set is not appropriate for the stakes being played.
If more than 400 is required for a single table tournament, then the set breakdown needs tweaking.
By that math, unless a significant chunk of a set is a single denomination to make a limit set, a 4000 chip set would cover 6 tables of cash and then some and a 10 table tournament. Has there ever been a non limit 4000 chip set documented as going into play in the home game pics thread? Attending one such game sounds like it would be epic.
As a general rule of thumb for me, if more than 600 chips for a cash set is needed for a single table of play, then the set is not appropriate for the stakes being played.
If more than 400 is required for a single table tournament, then the set breakdown needs tweaking.
More chips is better, yes, but some things make it difficult for that to happen sometimes. Cost is the number one factor in this. I would love nothing more than to have over 1000 chip mega sets of Paulsons that can spread anything from microstakes to a 2/5 game. However, I don't see myself hosting anything higher than a quarter/quarter game any time soon based on my regular rotation of players.I don’t subscribe to the “you must only have the bare minimum number of chips absolutely necessary” camp.
I’m not spending time worrying if I could get away with smaller starting stacks for a tourney, and not trying to have the fewest possible chips on a cash game table.
If I were hosting a 10-table tourney, then sure, probably then I put some thought into economizing. But I host a two-table tourney followed by a one-table cash game. (Only once did we balloon up to three tables, and I was glad to have enough chips to cover that.)
Yeah, the math problems to “solve” these minimalist equations are intellectually interesting. If I were on a budget and the difference in cost between 600 and 750 chips would break me, sure. But then I probably shouldn’t be playing poker at all. Let alone collecting chips worth more than $1 each.
Anyway, players just like having bigger, not smaller, stacks. People are less likely to nit it up when they feel they have lots of chips (even if the actual totals are identical).
Never in my life have I heard a non-chipping reg say “there are too many chips in play, get these damn excess chips off the table!”
If someone has “too many” 1s in a 1/2 cash game, or too many 5s in 2/5, they can either (A) enjoy hoarding them like Smaug, or (B) trade a couple barrels to someone who needs smaller change, or (C) exchange them with the bank for higher denoms. (A) is most popular. No one has ever exercised the option (C) in my years of hosting cash. And color-ups in tourneys tend to take care of any mess.
Also if someone busts and rebuys (in either cash or a tourney), I find they are usually happier getting a usable breakdown, rather than a bunch of big chips they have to get change for from the table.
Plus players making change from the pot, or a dealer making change every hand sucks, slowing down the game. This happens a lot in casino tourneys and it just means fewer orbits per round.
Lastly: MOAR chips better.
I’ll agree when it comes to tourney. But cash…. Gotta have dem stacksMore chips is better, yes, but some things make it difficult for that to happen sometimes. Cost is the number one factor in this. I would love nothing more than to have over 1000 chip mega sets of Paulsons that can spread anything from microstakes to a 2/5 game. However, I don't see myself hosting anything higher than a quarter/quarter game any time soon based on my regular rotation of players.
Secondly, my games are mostly 5, 6, maybe 7, seldom 8 handed for the most part. I just don't need any multi table sets. If I do have a cash game in which I have two tables at play, each table will have a different chip set and bank in play. Being a member of this forum, I have multiple cash and tournament sets in which some are lucky to see play once a year. If I can get more sets into play more often, it makes me happier.
Limit sets are the definite exception to the rule ad far as cash games
As far as tournaments go, as the one that mostly hosts then among my group and being the defacto tournament director, the less chips I have to color up the better. The game still runs smoothly with 30 to 35 chip starting stacks. Ad far as quantities needed, see above. I do have three sets now that can cover two eight player tables. I don't see myself ever having more than that.
While these mega sets are awesome and are a sight to behold, 99.9% of the time, they're just not practical.
If 600 is considered the "ideal minimum for most scenarios", what's a good "splurge cuz you gutta have dem stacks" setup?I’ll agree when it comes to tourney. But cash…. Gotta have dem stacks
Depends on the game imo, but I guess I could use my cpc order as example. I ordered: 200/400/700/200/100If 600 is considered the "ideal minimum for most scenarios", what's a good "splurge cuz you gutta have dem stacks" setup?
Agree 100%. When newer members ask for suggestions, I see a lot of people recommending that they only need a certain breakdown with a certain number of chips. In a scenario where you have to conserve space/budget I suppose this makes sense but I feel like in a practical setting, everyone wants bigger stacks.I’ll agree when it comes to tourney. But cash…. Gotta have dem stacks
Bingo. If anything, I hear the opposite. No one ever complains that there are too many.no one has ever complained about too many chips on the table
More chips is better, yes, but some things make it difficult for that to happen sometimes. Cost is the number one factor in this. I would love nothing more than to have over 1000 chip mega sets of Paulsons that can spread anything from microstakes to a 2/5 game. However, I don't see myself hosting anything higher than a quarter/quarter game any time soon based on my regular rotation of players.
Secondly, my games are mostly 5, 6, maybe 7, seldom 8 handed for the most part. I just don't need any multi table sets. If I do have a cash game in which I have two tables at play, each table will have a different chip set and bank in play. Being a member of this forum, I have multiple cash and tournament sets in which some are lucky to see play once a year. If I can get more sets into play more often, it makes me happier.
Limit sets are the definite exception to the rule ad far as cash games
As far as tournaments go, as the one that mostly hosts then among my group and being the defacto tournament director, the less chips I have to color up the better. The game still runs smoothly with 30 to 35 chip starting stacks. Ad far as quantities needed, see above. I do have three sets now that can cover two eight player tables. I don't see myself ever having more than that.
While these mega sets are awesome and are a sight to behold, 99.9% of the time, they're just not practical.
Yeah that's awesome!Depends on the game imo, but I guess I could use my cpc order as example. I ordered: 200/400/700/200/100
To @JMC9389 credit - it is excessive and unnecessary… but I love it. And like @Taghkanic said no one has ever complained about too many chips on the table
But yeah tourney is a pain in the ass to me too. Probably because I don’t run them often tho
To be fair, comparing 600 to 1000-1200 is a completely different ballgame than 4,000+ though.30-35 chip starting stacks are huge compared to some of the minimalist recommendations on this site! (8/8/4/2 = 22, etc.)
FWIW, most of my sets (both cash and tourney) tend to run in the 900-1,200 range. These give me flexibility and eliminate the need to stress over breakdowns, change, etc. I also think that long-term, these will retain/increase in value better than sets half their size, but who really knows. I’ve never seen Paulson prices go down here, over the long haul.
My PCR cash set is about 1,100 chips, almost half of them in $5 chips. I use these for both 1/2 and 2/5 games, single table. Almost all the 5s wind up in play, most of the 1s and 25s, few of the 100s, and seldom if ever the two barrels of 500s. But they are there if I need them. Whenever someone buys or rebuys I don’t have to sweat over exactly how I’m going to make cash.
With my main tourney sets, these are built to accommodate either T25 or T100 tourneys, generally two tables, but enough to cover three in a pinch. I include a few ultra-high denoms in case we have an unlimited rebuy/deepstack event with a full complement of players.
Yes, this means I’m holding more chips than absolutely necessary. I could get away with half as many, no doubt. But honestly, everything about chipping is a luxury hobby. It was a luxury when I was more cash-strapped 8 years ago; it remains so now that I’m more financially secure. The nice part is that I feel confident of always being able to get at least 90% of my cost back. At the very worst. Even the “mistakes” can be profitable.
So overbuying is at worst going to incur a small loss, and sometimes will result in getting back more than you paid. There is almost nothing else that I buy for which I can say the same. Buy a car? Within one week of purchase it’s worth 5-10% less than you paid. After a year, it’s worse than that. A sofa? It probably halves in value the instant you get it home. TVs? I’d be lucky to sell the gorgeous 65" Sony I bought 6 years ago for even 20% what I paid for it. But buy 800 quality chips when you only really needed 600? You can sell back those “extra” two racks no problem, almost always at your original cost. Unless maybe you are one of the handful of whales paying truly foolish prices at auction. That doesn't apply to most of us.
For those still worried about cost, there are plenty of options without winnowing a set down to the bare minimum. Just stick to your budget, and select an appropriate tier of chip. I often recommend the Majestics from Apache as a starter set. An 800-chip set costs $360. 600 chips is $225. The difference is $135. If you host only one game a month, the larger set costs an added $11.25 per game for the first year. Keep it for 5 years, and you’re down to an extra $2.25 per game. Unless you’re playing 5c/10c, this is a truly trivial cost in the scheme of things.
If 600 is considered the "ideal minimum for most scenarios", what's a good "splurge cuz you gutta have dem stacks" setup?
To be fair, comparing 600 to 1000-1200 is a completely different ballgame than 4,000+ though.
But… then there’s the moar denoms in play argument. This is extreme here with a $10 but I always like to at least get some 20s/25s in there even if 5s are unlimited in the setOK fine, I'm sold.
WTB (300) more Golden Eagle $5s, (300) Silver Palace $5s, and (300) LCO $5s.
Never been more proud to read a post! LolI don’t subscribe to the “you must only have the bare minimum number of chips absolutely necessary” camp.
I’m not spending time worrying if I could get away with smaller starting stacks for a tourney, and not trying to have the fewest possible chips on a cash game table.
If I were hosting a 10-table tourney, then sure, probably then I put some thought into economizing. But I host a two-table tourney followed by a one-table cash game. (Only once did we balloon up to three tables, and I was glad to have enough chips to cover that.)
Yeah, the math problems to “solve” these minimalist equations are intellectually interesting. If I were on a budget and the difference in cost between 600 and 750 chips would break me, sure. But then I probably shouldn’t be playing poker at all. Let alone collecting chips worth more than $1 each.
Anyway, players just like having bigger, not smaller, stacks. People are less likely to nit it up when they feel they have lots of chips (even if the actual totals are identical).
Never in my life have I heard a non-chipping reg say “there are too many chips in play, get these damn excess chips off the table!”
If someone has “too many” 1s in a 1/2 cash game, or too many 5s in 2/5, they can either (A) enjoy hoarding them like Smaug, or (B) trade a couple barrels to someone who needs smaller change, or (C) exchange them with the bank for higher denoms. (A) is most popular. No one has ever exercised the option (C) in my years of hosting cash. And color-ups in tourneys tend to take care of any mess.
Also if someone busts and rebuys (in either cash or a tourney), I find they are usually happier getting a usable breakdown, rather than a bunch of big chips they have to get change for from the table.
Plus players making change from the pot, or a dealer making change every hand sucks, slowing down the game. This happens a lot in casino tourneys and it just means fewer orbits per round.
Lastly: MOAR chips better.
I understand what you and others are saying about sets in the 800 to 1200 range. One certainly may need that for a full ring or a really deep 7 to 8 player game with lots of action.1200-1600 I think is a good “splurge” for a single table cash set.
Ideally every one of my single table cash sets would be a minimum of 1200-1300 chips even through 800-1000 is plenty workable.
600 chips is viable but is damn awful unless you’re playing 6 max. Why would you want to feel like you’re playing a tournament with a tiny amount of chips for a cash game?
I understand what you and others are saying about sets in the 800 to 1200 range. One certainly may need that for a full ring or a really deep 7 to 8 player game with lots of action.
600 is definitely workable and gets plenty of chips on the table. Pron below. The only thing I have against big stacks is that if someone shoves all in with a stack of 100 or more chips and they stack their chips like @Nuhockey (just kidding bud!), it's a nightmare to get an accurate count and delays the game significantly.
This would take a couple of minutes for even an experienced dealer to count correctly:
View attachment 818292
For you guys though, once I get my Sunfly limit set in, I'll put these into play for the next 0.10/0.20 game with $20 buy in. Starting stacks of a rack of dimes and ten $1 value chips.
Pron of my cash game stacks:
You just joined the madness... report back in a year! LolI don’t even have 4000 chips total.
I don’t even have 4000 chips total.
As a general rule of thumb for me, if more than 600 chips for a cash set is needed for a single table of play, then the set is not appropriate for the stakes being played.
If more than 400 is required for a single table tournament, then the set breakdown needs tweaking.
By that math, unless a significant chunk of a set is a single denomination to make a limit set, a 4000 chip set would cover 6 tables of cash and then some and a 10 table tournament. Has there ever been a non limit 4000 chip set documented as going into play in the home game pics thread? Attending one such game sounds like it would be epic.
Question for the Big Stack folks: when you make a bet of, say, $100, are you putting in a barrel of reds, or four greens, or one black?
... or, more generally, regardless of the stakes you play at: if your stack has five or ten barrels of the workhorse chip in it, do you make bets using entire barrels at once? Or do you make large bets using large chips?
Ignore all-in bets for this question.