The OP’s question revolved around T5 vs. T25. I’ll address two issues.
Tournament vs. Cash chips
I’m a fan of completely different chips for tournament and cash chips for several reasons. A big one is that tournament chips use fantasy values. The chips do not maintain their value throughout a tournament. As chips are colored up, the value of a chip goes down. The lowest value denom on the table will disappear at the next color up.
Cash chips are using chips instead of cash. Those chips maintain their value throughout a game.
This is a huge difference. It affects how many chips you need.
For cash games, I suspect that the chip above your minimum denom, or maybe two steps, is going to be the workhorse chip. For example, if you are playing $.05/.10 blinds and no limit, your workhorse chips will either be the $.25 or the $1, perhaps depending on your group. You will need more of those two chips than any other. That won’t change throughout the game unless you change the stakes.
I think Zombie made the point that in a tournament, any chip other than the lowest will be, or at least could be, the workhorse chip at some point. I’m not sure if he mentioned that the highest denom in play won’t ever be a workhorse chip unless it is the only one on the table. Since the question was about tournaments, I’ll not address the cash chips.
Chip Set Efficiency
If you have to purchase the chips, several factors come into play. The most basic question is, “How many chips are necessary to do what you want?” Many factors come into play when considering a tournament chip set. In no particular order:
· starting stacks
· starting blinds
· blind structure
· re-buys and add-ons
· maximum # players you want to accommodate vs. the normal number of players
· how long you want the tournament to last
· how you want to do color ups
· cost per chip
· etc.
Then consider that your very lowest chips will come off the table first and will be in play the shortest amount of time. Your first 2 chips will play less than the others. That’s usually going to be 50% or more of your chips.
If you want a lot of those chips, your chip set will be more expensive than if you just want the minimum to effectively get the job done. Assume that all chips in the set cost the same amount. For their use, those first 2 will be the most expensive because they will be in play the shortest amount of time, unless you use really high denom chips late in the game. However, those will be less expensive because you will need so many fewer of them.
In my game, at the anticipated halfway point, in a 2-table game, over 2/3 (32 of 49 per player) of the starting chips are coming off the table. For that tournament, it’s 2,000 per player average coving off the table, so they are replaced with 2 higher denom chips on average. It’s more likely higher than 2 average, but even if it’s 5 average, it’s approximately 45% of the chips on the table after that color up. Some would do approximately the same thing 25-35% of the anticipated way through.
My blind structure was designed to maximize the time the lowest values are in play. Then we take a break and after the break, the perception is people have fewer chips and must start playing more.
That raises the question, “How much do you really want to spend on the smallest chips that will come out of play the fastest?” It’s not the only question, but you can’t ignore it. Look at the chart below and you might be surprised and what percentage of your total chips are in the lowest 2 values. That’s going to be true for almost any values you use.
The reality for casinos, I’m pretty sure, is that in a chip set, the chips all cost the same amount. I’m assuming for most of us that is the case, though with true customs your chip design might not cost the same per chip. They are certainly going to consider that for tournament use, especially if they have chips only for tournaments, the most efficient chip structure for the casino.
Now I’ll use my situation as an example. I host a tournament. Most (10 per table) tournaments are 1, 2 (most common), or 3-table tournaments. I wanted a chip set where I could accommodate 40 if I needed to in case I provide chips for a bigger game. I think it’s always a good idea to build for more than you really anticipate. I’d also build for larger starting stacks than you really anticipate. I decided to use a minimum number of chips per player at 40. My normal number of players though is 20. With 20, I roughly double the number of lower value chips per player vs. 40. With 30, that’s an in-between amount of chips so more than with 40, but not as many as 20. It turns out 30 players requires more chips in most cases than 20 or 40. Your numbers will change if your maximum at a table is 8 or 9. I’d advise people to use 10 as the base for calculating the chip purchase even if your tables are a little smaller. Remember, you just might provide the chips for a game that uses 10.
Now go to the ratio of SBs, not BBs, to starting chips. If I want 200 BB, that means 400 SB (most of the time). I’ll compare starting values of 1, 5, and 25 with 20, 30, and 40 players. To keep things consistent, I will completely color up the lower value chips, meaning that I assume we will color up the lowest chip with the next lowest completely. While that isn’t the most efficient way to do a color up, it does provide you the most flexibility when buying a chip set since you will likely alter chip stacks from time to time, and maybe even what your starting SB chip is.
With 40, I used what I’d consider the minimum number of the lowest chips to be practical – 8 to 12. That’s still going to require more making change than I’d prefer. With 30, I used more than the minimum. Even doubling the smallest chips, 20 players requires fewer overall chips than the other two, and no chip value requires more than with the other two structures.
I’ve never done the analysis on BG’s suggested T.25 until today. I’d never considered it before, but I think he’s right about it being even more efficient.
For values starting at T1, 40 = 1,306 chips; 30 = 1,549; and 20 = 1,133; 800-1,050 are the lowest 2 value chips.
For values starting at T5, 40 = 1,246 chips; 30 = 1,450; and 20 = 1,067; 720-930 are the lowest 2 value chips.
For values starting at T25, 40 = 1,111 chips; 30 = 1,163; and 20 = 1,063; 660-720 are the lowest 2 value chips.
For values starting at T.25, 40 = 1,008 chips; 30 = 876; and 20 = 915; 660-720 are the lowest 2 value chips.
Doing this analysis, in order of efficiency, it’s T.25, T25, T5, and T1. The first color-up being 4:1 instead of 5:1 is really the key to why T25 is more efficient than either T1 or T5. The increased efficiency of the T.25 is from eliminating the inefficient 500/1,000 jump. The first three just consider the 500/1,000 to be resetting the value.
While BG is right about efficiency, I think it’s easier for players to not have to deal with a fraction. It could be printed on the chip as either 1/4 or .25, but whole numbers are easier for most people to work with. I think casinos either haven’t thought of that, or they thought it through and believe that fewer players would show up if they used a fraction. BG is absolutely right if chip efficiency were the only issue. I hadn’t thought about it before, but even realizing it’s more efficient, I’d still go with T25 because I think more players are candidates. I might be wrong, but that’s the way I’d bet.
Zombie is probably right about new players having an easier time starting with T5, and might have an even easier time dealing with T1 to start.
Perception is really everything. Paying $x to get 100; 400; 2,000; or 10,000 starting chips – more sounds like a better deal, even though that is not true. Using the values above, these all offer an identical 200BB starting stack. But at least some people will do only the most basic math and think 10,000 is a lot more. The number is higher, even if the ratio isn’t. Casinos are businesses. They want to get the most people in for the least cost to them. While most of us consider the number of BB, some players don’t. For the casino, if 11% base their decision only on the perceived bang for the buck, the T25 becomes the best for many reasons.
When you are buying for even more players, the more expensive your chips are, the bigger the cost difference. It’s not just cost of chips either. It’s cost of storage and transport. For casinos, that’s going to come into play more than for a home game.
The bottom line is you purchase a chip set based on your needs. I think if you want to maximize chip efficiency for your biggest game, have a more playable set (less change making) for your regular games, and don’t want to eliminate the dull-thinking players (who you might really want more of), T25 if the overall best. But none of them are horrible. Here's horrible:
4x25 (start 25/50, then 50/100)
2x50
After round 2, the 25s and 50s come off. Having both 25s and 50s makes no sense to me. Having so few of the smallest chips players are making change from the first hand makes no sense to me.
I played in a game that did that, and they didn't use denominated chips or normal chip colors. The hosts had no interest in a more logical chip progression or anything better than their dice chips.
