Need recommendation - chips for a home cash game (7 Viewers)

[atomiktoaster]

Also someone mentioned not doubling the blinds on level 2, so I would need to go from 25c/50c to 50c/75c right?, which would call for 3 quarters to call the blinds no (so 24 quarters on the table if everyone calls)?

Seems like tossing in a $1 and pulling 25c of someone else's stack before everyone has moved their chips into the middle tedious no, or am I missing something? Sorry for the dumb questions.

A cash game shouldn't have levels. If you decide to raise your stakes because the game is growing or whatever, 50c/$1 is the next level to move to.

If you want to experiment with a tournament format, you can use the same cash chips to save yourself from purchasing a second set. Just to distinguish the two scenarios, your 25c chip would play as a T25, and you'd have at least $1 = T100 and $5 = T500 chips. You wouldn't have use these names with your players, but they will help us keep the two game types straight. Mixing tournament and cash play with the same chips on the same night is a bad idea for lots of reasons, so don't do that. If you really have to, make sure you do a complete chip count before switching to cash.

With a T25 as the smallest chip, the most common tournament setup would start each player with a T10,000 stack (which will look like $100 if it was a cash game). A smaller stack will really hurt the game in terms of allowing less interesting play (ideal strategy will become fold/shove pre-flop very quickly).

Here's a nice T10k structure, borrowed from @ChipTalker and at least moderately approved by @BGinGA

For a structure like that, you need at least T100,000 in bank, but probably more if you want to be flexible (rebuys or deepstack nights). That's $1000 in bank, if you do the conversion.

 

[mummel]

A lot to digest, thanks. I think I need to separate the tourney idea vs the cash game for now until I understand everything thats going on (a lot of this is French to me).

1) So for the cash game, are 25c/50c starting blinds with a $20 buy-in acceptable (i.e. 40 BBs in your starting stack)?

How our games normally progress is that we have 8 guys, $20 buy-ins, each chip is 50c (so 20 BBs starting stack), 2-4 bust over 1-2 hours, they rebuy $20, we keep playing. And about 75% of the way through the evening, we double the blinds to move the game along, and normally the last 3 guys cash out. Although its a cash game, it's sort of nice to have only 3 guys standing at the end of the night so that someone wins a decent amount (vs the pot being distributed among 8 guys etc). Also once 2-3 guys are out for the evening, it's nice to speed things up so they dont sit there all night (no one goes home, too much of a party!)

Previously I've started off the stacks at 20 BBs. The only reason I think that's worked is because our games are soooooo slow because everyone is doing shots and talking smack. To make this more about the poker vs the whiskey, my hope is that using chips with denoms and upping the starting BBs to 40 from 20 will make the game more exciting.

In any event, the one lingering question I have is that you guys have said 100 X 25c chips would be enough for this type of game, and I'm just trying to get comfort with that to make sure I dont screw up and buy too few chips (more shipping down the road, risk of chip color differences etc).

 

[RowdyRawhide]

If there's already a bunch of quarters in the pot, and everybody is that limpy (which is terrible poker, btw), then you just call by throwing in a $1 and taking out two quarters. You want the pot to be mostly in the workhorse denom anyway, otherwise it's harder to eyeball the size when you're picking out an amount to raise.

While many may agree with this, and I do as well in a grinding sense of the game, either casino or home game. It seems a little harsh for the OP's situation. When we play with my wife's family (mostly stud) almost everyone limps for five cards and you will still get three or four callers at showdown, granted this is a nickel game and if you raise 50c you get raked over the coals. However for those of us that take poker a little more serious we put up with it because it is for a good time. Technically this game should be considered a limit game since that is how it plays, even though you could shove every hand and everyone would fold, most likely, to you and then it wouldn't be fun for anyone. I have tried to make it a limit structure and nobody wanted it that way, keep in mind most of the players have been playing this way for 35-40yrs and I've only been around for 15.... It sounds as if the OP's game my run like this, meaning more of a limit game, especially in the beginning.

A cash game shouldn't have levels. If you decide to raise your stakes because the game is growing or whatever, 50c/$1 is the next level to move to.

I agree with this^^^^^

Also someone mentioned not doubling the blinds on level 2, so I would need to go from 25c/50c to 50c/75c right?, which would call for 3 quarters to call the blinds no (so 24 quarters on the table if everyone calls)?

Seems like tossing in a $1 and pulling 25c of someone else's stack before everyone has moved their chips into the middle is tedious no, or am I missing something? Sorry for the dumb questions.

If you have a lot of limping in your game then I would get more 25c...besides who doesn't want more chips on the table. If it plays this way then I would seriously entertain the idea of turning it into a limit structure. Many people don't care for limit, but I actually enjoy as much as NLHE. Just two different mindsets, and you tend to see a lot more hole cards.

That said, I would have to agree with @BGinGA and @Chicken Rob breakdowns above. Unless you change it to limit then I'm sure everyone would have a different breakdown

 

[Chicken Rob]

I suggested the chip counts I did for 2 reasons:

1. Adequate workhorse chips
2. Not too many quarters
3. A big enough bank to cover a night with a lot of rebuys

This set should cover your game comfortably, without fear of running low on chips.

 

[atomiktoaster]

I agree with this^^^^^

I read that again and it barely makes sense if you take it literally. "Don't have levels, but the next level would be..."

Still, a change of stakes should probably be in the 5c/10c, 10c/25c, 25c/50c, 50c/1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 2/5, 5/5, 4/8, 5/10... progression.

Limit is a very good point. 25c/50c limit makes more sense with a $20 buy-in. It'd be much more common to run 5c/10c for a $20 NLHE game, but chipsets for a game like that have flexibility issues.

The 50/50 tournament structure is another possibility. You play with much deeper stacks and a smoothly increasing blind structure but the game finishes once half the players have busted and the other half get to double their buy-in.

 

[RowdyRawhide]

I read that again and it barely makes sense if you take it literally. "Don't have levels, but the next level would be..."

Still, a change of stakes should probably be in the 5c/10c, 10c/25c, 25c/50c, 50c/1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 2/5, 5/5, 4/8, 5/10... progression.

Limit is a very good point. 25c/50c limit makes more sense with a $20 buy-in. It'd be much more common to run 5c/10c for a $20 NLHE game, but chipsets for a game like that have flexibility issues.

The 50/50 tournament structure is another possibility. You play with much deeper stacks and a smoothly increasing blind structure but the game finishes once half the players have busted and the other half get to double their buy-in.

LOL I was reading it as "don't have levels in your cash game period. It sounds like your game is ready to move to 50c/$1"

 

[Jambine]

$50 for a case that wont explode is a bargain........

Too true

 

[atomiktoaster]

LOL I was reading it as "don't have levels in your cash game period. It sounds like your game is ready to move to 50c/$1"

Yeah, I meant something like that, but reusing the word "level" was a terrible idea.

 

[Chicken Rob]

Raising the stakes as games progress in cash games happens in casinos and home games alike, with the consent of all players at the table.

Starting with less than 100 big blinds is playing with short stacks. Nothing wrong with it, but it's short stack play for sure.

 

[Jambine]

Raising the stakes as games progress in cash games happens in casinos and home games alike, with the consent of all players at the table.

Starting with less than 100 big blinds is playing with short stacks. Nothing wrong with it, but it's short stack play for sure.

"with the consent of all players at the table". That is the operative phrase. If even one person is reluctant and you raise the blinds anyway, you may find that player no longer wants to attend your game

 

[mummel]

A cash game shouldn't have levels. If you decide to raise your stakes because the game is growing or whatever, 50c/$1 is the next level to move to.

If you want to experiment with a tournament format, you can use the same cash chips to save yourself from purchasing a second set. Just to distinguish the two scenarios, your 25c chip would play as a T25, and you'd have at least $1 = T100 and $5 = T500 chips. You wouldn't have use these names with your players, but they will help us keep the two game types straight. Mixing tournament and cash play with the same chips on the same night is a bad idea for lots of reasons, so don't do that. If you really have to, make sure you do a complete chip count before switching to cash.

With a T25 as the smallest chip, the most common tournament setup would start each player with a T10,000 stack (which will look like $100 if it was a cash game). A smaller stack will really hurt the game in terms of allowing less interesting play (ideal strategy will become fold/shove pre-flop very quickly).

Here's a nice T10k structure, borrowed from @ChipTalker and at least moderately approved by @BGinGA

For a structure like that, you need at least T100,000 in bank, but probably more if you want to be flexible (rebuys or deepstack nights). That's $1000 in bank, if you do the conversion.

Ok so I think I'm looking good on my cash set selection:

160 X 25c chips needed (so buy 200)
140 X $1 chips (so buy 175)
12 X $5 chips (so buy 25)

Now theoretically, if I wanted to use the same set for a 16 player tourney (no rebuys), with a $20 buy-in, starting off at 25c/50c blinds, you said I need $100 (T10,000) in starting chips for each player correct?

It seems like the denoms required would change drastically.

What denoms are required for a T10,000 game? TY.

 

[atomiktoaster]

Here's a good rundown of SPR, and the difference between playing short vs deep stacks: http://www.thepokerbank.com/strategy/concepts/spr/

 

[mummel]

Ok so I think I'm looking good on my cash set selection:

160 X 25c chips needed (so buy 200)
140 X $1 chips (so buy 175)
12 X $5 chips (so buy 25)

Now theoretically, if I wanted to use the same set for a 16 player tourney (no rebuys), with a $20 buy-in, starting off at 25c/50c blinds, you said I need $100 (T10,000) in starting chips for each player correct?

It seems like the denoms required would change drastically.

What denoms are required for a T10,000 game? TY.

Ok so I tried to answer my own question using Blind Valet. Guys does this look right?

Starting stack/denoms for 16 player tournament, $20 buy in, no rebuys, with blinds starting off at 50c/$1:

8 X 25c chips (128 chips needed in my chip set, covered)
8 X $1 chips (128 chips needed, covered)
6 X $5 chips (96 chips needed, so I am 71 chips short here)
6 X $10 chips (I would need to buy 96 new $10 chips to cover this)

Total = $100 starting stack which OP mentioned (T10,000). Is this right???

Here's a good rundown of SPR, and the difference between playing short vs deep stacks: http://www.thepokerbank.com/strategy/concepts/spr/

This looks really useful TY, will read it tonight when I have more time LOL, thanks man.

 

[atomiktoaster]

Ok so I tried to answer my own question using Blind Valet. Guys does this look right?

Starting stack/denoms for 16 player tournament, $20 buy in, no rebuys, with blinds starting off at 50c/$1:

8 X 25c chips (128 chips needed in my chip set, covered)
8 X $1 chips (128 chips needed, covered)
6 X $5 chips (96 chips needed, so I am 71 chips short here)
6 X $10 chips (I would need to buy 96 new $10 chips to cover this)

Total = $100 starting stack which OP mentioned (T10,000). Is this right???

View attachment 36519

Your cash set is low on 5s anyway, so that's not as bad as it seems. You could go with $20s as a T2000 chip too. That would help things a bit.

 

[mummel]

You could go with $20s as a T2000 chip too. That would help things a bit.

I dont know what this means sorry?

Ok so I tried to answer my own question using Blind Valet. Guys does this look right?

Starting stack/denoms for 16 player tournament, $20 buy in, no rebuys, with blinds starting off at 50c/$1:

8 X 25c chips (128 chips needed in my chip set, covered)
8 X $1 chips (128 chips needed, covered)
6 X $5 chips (96 chips needed, so I am 71 chips short here)
6 X $10 chips (I would need to buy 96 new $10 chips to cover this)

Total = $100 starting stack which OP mentioned (T10,000). Is this right???

View attachment 36519

Also, is $10 the last denom in a 16 player tourney with $20 buy-in or T10,000 like someone mentioned. I see Blind Valet mentions a $50 chip in the dropdown, but doesnt include it at the start (ie. do I need these $50 chips and at what point in the tourney does one introduce them?). TY.

 

[Jambine]

.....Now theoretically, if I wanted to use the same set for a 16 player tourney (no rebuys), with a $20 buy-in, starting off at 25c/50c blinds, you said I need $100 (T10,000) in starting chips for each player correct?

It seems like the denoms required would change drastically.....

If you consider getting a NCV set, you can get a lot more mileage with the same number of chips. Makes it easy to use the same set for tourney or cash, stakes up or down, whatever you need

 

[atomiktoaster]

I dont know what this means sorry?

Your denoms could be 25c/$1/$5/$20, with no $10 chip. They would play as a T2000 in tournaments.

 

[atomiktoaster]

If you consider getting a NCV set, you can get a lot more mileage with the same number of chips. Makes it easy to use the same set for tourney or cash, stakes up or down, whatever you need

He has a non denom set already, and it seems to cause confusion (my experience with casual players while drinking too).

 

[Jambine]

He has a non denom set already, and it seems to cause confusion (my experience with casual players while drinking too).

Yes, especially with casual players who drink seriously.

 

[mummel]

He has a non denom set already, and it seems to cause confusion (my experience with casual players while drinking too).

Yeah it's normally like, "I'll call your two white chips and raise you two blues". No one knows, including myself, WTF is going on, mostly due to the whisky. I'm excited about adding denoms.

Your denoms could be 25c/$1/$5/$20, with no $10 chip. They would play as a T2000 in tournaments.

Are you saying that if I go 25c/$1/$5/$20 chips, then I wont need to buy 96 X $10 chips, and say 25 X $50 chips.

How many $20 chips would I need? Would this be common in a tournament structure (i.e. skipping the 10s), because I see Blind Valet calls for $10 chips in every combination of starting stacks.

Fail, I see the Majestic chips dont have a $50 denom or a $20 demon, so the point is moot. Looks like I'm forced into the $25 chip (at least its a nice green color .)

If I'm skipping the 10s, then yes, I would need more 5s as someone else mentioned, so thats ok.

But how many $25 chips would I need?

 

[atomiktoaster]

Are you saying that if I go 25c/$1/$5/$20 chips, then I wont need to buy 96 X $10 chips, and say 25 X $50 chips.

How many $20 chips would I need? Would this be common in a tournament structure (i.e. skipping the 10s), because I see Blind Valet calls for $10 chips in every combination of starting stacks.

For various reasons, a chip labeled "1000" in a dedicated tournament set is much more common than a "2000", despite that fact that it's usually paired with a "500" and is only 2x the value of the previous chip instead of 4x or 5x (which is more efficient). There are some tournament sets that use a T2000 chip, but the T1000 that Blind Value expects is much more common.

For chips with cash labels, a $25 is the most common, followed by a $20, a $10 and a $50 (which many stock sets don't have, and very very few casinos).

Whether your upper denom is $10/$20 or $25, you'll need the same value in chips to do a tournament (rounded up, 100 x $10 or 50 x $20 or $25).

 

[mummel]

For various reasons, a chip labeled "1000" in a dedicated tournament set is much more common than a "2000", despite that fact that it's usually paired with a "500" and is only 2x the value of the previous chip instead of 4x or 5x (which is more efficient). There are some tournament sets that use a T2000 chip, but the T1000 that Blind Value expects is much more common.

For chips with cash labels, a $25 is the most common, followed by a $20, a $10 and a $50 (which many stock sets don't have, and very very few casinos).

Whether your upper denom is $10/$20 or $25, you'll need the same value in chips to do a tournament (rounded up, 100 x $10 or 50 x $20 or $25).

Ah I see thanks. Yeah I pulled up a spreadsheet, and calculated if there were only $5 and $25 chips left on the table, and only 2 players left, that I would be able to use 95 X $5 chips, plus 45 X $25 chips, and each player would theoretically have 70 chips on each side if they were divided evenly.

Does a situation like this make sense in a tourney?

If so, then how come most tourneys have a T1000 chip vs a T2000 chip? Why am I at a disadvantage if I go for the $25 chip (or T2500 in this case). Do I screw with Blind Valet's blind structure at all?

Ah I see thanks. Yeah I pulled up a spreadsheet, and calculated if there were only $5 and $25 chips left on the table, and only 2 players left, that I would be able to use 95 X $5 chips, plus 45 X $25 chips, and each player would theoretically have 70 chips on each side if they were divided evenly.

Does a situation like this make sense in a tourney?

If so, then how come most tourneys have a T1000 chip vs a T2000 chip? Why am I at a disadvantage if I go for the $25 chip (or T2500 in this case). Do I screw with Blind Valet's blind structure at all?

What I do see is that I need 6 X $10 according to Blind Valet's starting chip distribution. I could use 2 X $25 but then I would need another 2 X $5 chips for each player at the start, so an additional 32 X $5 chips + the already 96 chips required, which comes out to 128 X $5 chips required, which means I need to purchase 50 X more $5 red chips than planed .

1) So if I go the $10 chip route, I need 96 of these (buy 100) + additional $25 chips (because they dont have a $50 denom, not sure how many I need).
2) And if I go the $25 route, I need to buy an additional 32 X $5 (so buy 50) + 45 X $25 chips (so buy 50) which = 100 new chips, which is still less chips than option 1 (i.e. cheaper).

So by this math (if I didnt mess up), option 2 and the $25 chip is cheaper and I wont have the problem of missing the $50 denom if I get the $10.

So yeah, it comes down to how I am disadvantaging my tourney by using a T2500 vs a T1000 or T2000 chip. Any ideas?

 

[atomiktoaster]

What I do see is that I need 6 X $10 according to Blind Valet's starting chip distribution. I could use 2 X $25 but then I would need another 2 X $5 chips for each player at the start, so an additional 32 X $5 chips + the already 96 chips required, which comes out to 128 X $5 chips required, which means I need to purchase 50 X more $5 red chips than planed .

1) So if I go the $10 chip route, I need 96 of these (buy 100) + additional $25 chips (because they dont have a $50 denom, not sure how many I need).
2) And if I go the $25 route, I need to buy an additional 32 X $5 (so buy 50) + 45 X $25 chips (so buy 50) which = 100 new chips, which is still less chips than option 1 (i.e. cheaper).

So by this math (if I didnt mess up), option 2 and the $25 chip is cheaper and I wont have the problem of missing the $50 denom if I get the $10.

So yeah, it comes down to how I am disadvantaging my tourney by using a T2500 vs a T1000 or T2000 chip. Any ideas?

The biggest disadvantage of moving away from a T1000 is reduced familiarity for players who are used to T1000 chips. People also complain about the math (3 T2500 and 2 T500 is 8500 total might be hard? I dunno, I'm fine with that). There can be issues with really big tournaments where blinds make more sense in multiples of 1000 vs. 2500, but your tournament shouldn't go much farther than the 500/1000 level with 16 players anyway.

I'm tempted to suggest adding on 5c chips and doing a T2000 tournament with a face value of $20.... not sure what your thoughts there are. You kind of miss that bigshot feel of $100 pots that way.

 

[mummel]

So this is where I am:

8 player, $20 buy-in cash game, with 4 re-buys, and 25c/50c starting blinds:

160 X 25c chips needed
140 X $1 chips
12 X $5 chips


16 player, $20 buy-in tourney, and 25c/50c starting blinds:

128 X 25c chips needed
128 X $1 chips
128 X $5 chips
45 X $25 chips


I need to buy:

160 X 25c (I will probably just get 200 to fill a rack, 40 spare)
140 X $1 (I will probably just get 200 to fill a rack, 60 spare)
128 X $5 (buy 150, 22 spare, not sure if I should go 200 here to fill a rack, it's getting expensive)
45 X $25 (buy 50, 5 spare, I could also go 100 here to full a rack but again, its getting expensive)

Minimum chip count = 525 ($189)
Probably good chip count to round off racks, have spares = 600 ($216)
Max chip count to fill out all trays = 700 ($252, ouch)

And if I forget the tournaments, and get the bare minimum for my cash games, I'm looking at 175 X 25c, 150 X $1, and 25 X $5 = 350 chips = $126 (which is exactly $126 cheaper than the all in package).

And the El Cheapo route of getting Poker Knights = $53 bare min, $105 all-in

Decisions!!!!!!!!.....

Does this make sense??? Please tell me if I'm missing something. Thanks guys.

 

[TheOctagon]

Wow, day late to the thread and I missed a ton!

I'm working on a writeup for the slugged ABS/compression series (Desert Heat, Gold Rush etc.) In short, they're kind of disappointing because of the poor edge spot designs, but if you're after a heavy chip with some very, very eye-catching base colors and you're on a budget, they're going to speak to you I think. The tournament denoms have the best colors overall. If you like the bases, pick the set with the label that makes you happiest. I think Desert Heat's more pastel colors work well, but if you want a nice, bold look check out the Gold Rush series. The Mint and Rock and Roll series, which is on a different mold altogether, might be an interesting alternative for you at this price range.

If you're moving toward the Majestics, you'll have to wait until I get my sample set for me to write that up BUT!

Fail, I see the Majestic chips dont have a $50 denom or a $20 demon

You must have missed the Majestic jetons!

https://www.apachepokerchips.com/product-category/plaques-and-jetons/majestic-plaques-and-jetons/

They're at a premium, though. If I go with a Majestic set (with OG labels, not [removed: slugged relabel] custom labeled blanks like I'm considering) I think I'm going to nab some of the jetons. Not for everybody, as I understand it, but they appeal to me.

Also,

Yeah it's normally like, "I'll call your two white chips and raise you two blues". No one knows, including myself, WTF is going on, mostly due to the whisky. I'm excited about adding denoms.

Exactly That's why, while I love my blank 312 ASM/CPC set (recently oiled, looking hot at hell), they make dummies dumber when we're drinking and playing!

 

[NicholasAK]

Minimum chip count = 525 ($189)
Probably good chip count to round off racks, have spares = 600 ($216)
Max chip count to fill out all trays = 700 ($252, ouch)
...if I forget the tournaments...$126 cheaper than the all in package).

Difference between $126 and $252 is not all that much. Get what will make you happy.

Please get a couple samples of progen, majestics, veneratis...nothing can describe the difference in feel and its all about how YOU like them. For 525 chips, I spent $234 including shipping. If its a design preference, great. If its a price point issue, please reconsider your options.

 

[CdnBeerLover]

If it helps, I can send you a spreadsheet that will help you figure out the numbers. PM coming...

 

[MaxB]

8 player, $20 buy-in cash game, with 4 re-buys, and 25c/50c starting blinds:

160 X 25c chips needed
140 X $1 chips
12 X $5 chips

160 quarters are not needed..... rebuys shouldn't have the lowest denomination. Use your 5's as rebuy chips or combine 5's with some 1's. Even with 8 people and starting with 12 quarters, you only need 100 tops. Use those extra 60 chips for some extra 5's and 1's.

Actually if you have 8 players at $20 plus want extra chips for 4 rebuys, that's $240 buy-ins. You only have $240 in the bank leaving no room for expansion or lost chips with that current breakdown

 

[Trihonda]

Are we discussing a cash set that can double as a tourney set?

Cuz that's what it sounds like...

On a serious note, I like having lots of quarters for a low stakes game, but there's no need to use them for reloads. Just use ones and fives.

As for tourneys. Are we going standard denoms? 25/100/500/1k?

 

[atomiktoaster]

Are we discussing a cash set that can double as a tourney set?

Cuz that's what it sounds like...

On a serious note, I like having lots of quarters for a low stakes game, but there's no need to use them for reloads. Just use ones and fives.

As for tourneys. Are we going standard denoms? 25/100/500/1k?

Kind of, except it's not a normal cash game either. Weird rebuy tourney hybrid that plays a bit like a limit game with a stack proportional payout. We seem to be subtly pushing toward a more traditional tourney structure as an experimental option.