Tourney Tournament set with non denomination chips (1 Viewer)

[Mr Winberg]

You say you like not having to explain the chip values every time you host. Are you hosting lots of strangers, or do you have high turnover among your guests?

High turnover, and there's usually at least one new face each time. Also, even before covid my hosting decreased to 3-4 times a year because became a father, so even if it were only regs, they would likely need to refresh their memories.

though a couple of printed cards with the values on each table would also spare you from explaining

One would think so. But no, IME it didn't fully eliminate the need when my set was without denoms.

Thought experiment: Say you go to Hell after you die and are forced to play in a tourney every day which uses non-denom chips. You are never told the value of each day’s colors, only the blind structure and the total starting stacks. The other players are told the actual denoms.

How long would it take each day to figure out the chip values?

My answer is that it should not take more than a few hands. Maybe only 1 hand. Unless Satan is being really cruel with his starting stack structure, in which case it might have to wait for a big hand or for blinds to go up to deduce the higher value chips.

I have never argued that denoms are needed to know the value. I even wrote:

I think most people see the green chips with the pink spots and instantly know it's 25 without having to read the label

I simply do not believe that those who like denoms want them so they can read them every other bet. The way I have interpreted your texts, it seems to me that you think this is the case. If so, then I think you're wrong about that. I can't imagine that people are actually actively reading the denoms when playing, at least not after a few hands. But what do I know...

 

[BGinGA]

I like to rotate a large number of sets into play with our group of regulars. Very few of those sets have the exact same colors for each denomination, as most tourney denomination colors vary by quite a bit and do not follow any kind of 'standard'. If the sets I use/rotate were not denominated, it would be a logistical nightmare for everybody involved -- regular players or not.

The 'regulars' argument for using non-denominated chips fails badly upon closer inspection, imo -- unless you are using exactly ONE set all of the time..... in which case, GTFO.

 

[Mr Winberg]

unless you are using exactly ONE set all of the time..... in which case, GTFO.

 

[grebe]

I tend to prefer minimalist design, which typically strips away unnecessary elements. I see denoms as unnecessary elements of label/inlay design *in private games where all or virtually all* players are regs. If I were switching chipsets every session, or had different players every week, or hosting a public game, I might feel differently.

You say you like not having to explain the chip values every time you host. Are you hosting lots of strangers, or do you have high turnover among your guests? Then I suppose denoms might make sense, though a couple of printed cards with the values on each table would also spare you from explaining.

Thought experiment: Say you go to Hell after you die and are forced to play in a tourney every day which uses non-denom chips. You are never told the values of each day’s colors, only the blind structure and the total starting stacks. The other players are told the actual denoms.

How long would it take each day to figure out the chip values?

My answer is that it should not take more than a few hands. Maybe only 1 hand. Unless Satan is being really cruel with his starting stack structure, in which case it might have to wait for a big hand or for blinds to go up to deduce the higher value chips.

In my end of the thought experiment, the other players that have been told the denominations still ask: "Wait, how much are the purples worth again?"

 

[CrazyEddie]

100% this. Multipliers are an awful idea, non denom is way preferable to this.

[whispers]
Tournament chips use multipliers

 

[Taghkanic]

I simply do not believe that those who like denoms want them so they can read them every other bet.

So they are for... What? Reading them once? Because it looks cooler?

If occasional reference is the need, a key card really should do fine for most. Or a legend on the tourney screen, if you have a scree everyone can see without much trouble.

Of course there are always people who ask about denoms, blinds, where the action is... No matter what the host does. I don’t cater my game to those.

If games are infrequent, that’s a different story. Still... Experienced players typically don’t need much hand-holding in this department.

I’m more convinced than ever that the attachment to denoms in private games is (a) more about convention than usability, and (b) almost akin to the love of slugged “casino weight” thing among non-chippers. (Look—our chips are “official”! They have numbers and everything!)

Note: I used the same large non-denom solid set for years in our tourney, before assembling a large Jack set. No issues at all with confusion with the solids, because I used the same color progression as the previous hosts, only with better quality chips. When I’ve added a new high value color for deeper stacked events, it had no denom... There wasn’t mass panic.

For variety, I do rotate chips in our cash game, though not the tourney. The tourney players seem to prefer to see the same ones every time... I think because stack management / ICM is more of an issue and familiarity helps in quickly sizing up what you have left and what others still have.

The cash sets all have denoms, but that’s just because it’s rarer to find spotted non-denoms. But I’m confident my group would be fine with rotations of non-denoms in cash as well. Almost all of the chips in our cash pots are 5s anyway, so there’s not much to remember.

 

[CrazyEddie]

I tend to prefer minimalist design, which typically strips away unnecessary elements. I see denoms as unnecessary elements of label/inlay design *in private games where all or virtually all* players are regs.

I too generally prefer minimalist designs. However, I still prefer chips to have denoms (although I prefer without currency symbols), partly because I like things to have labels, and partly because it feels like it's incomplete without the denomination; the function of the chip is to represent a certain amount, and specifically to represent a different amount than the other chips, thus it feels incomplete (not fulfilling its function; form follows function as they say) without a clear indication of what that amount is.

That said, I've got several vintage sets and a starburst set, all of which are denomination-free, and there's no logistical difficulty whatsoever using them in play. And the aesthetics of using those particular chips are just fine - because, at least in my mind, they were designed and intended to be exactly what they are.

Aesthetics admit of no logic but their own.

 

[BGinGA]

So they are for... What? Reading them once? Because it looks cooler?

If occasional reference is the need, a key card really should do fine for most. Or a legend on the tourney screen, if you have a scree everyone can see without much trouble.

Of course there are always people who ask about denoms, blinds, where the action is... No matter what the host does. I don’t cater my game to those.

If games are infrequent, that’s a different story. Still... Experienced players typically don’t need much hand-holding in this department.

I’m more convinced than ever that the attachment to denoms in private games is (a) more about convention than usability, and (b) almost akin to the love of slugged “casino weight” thing among non-chippers. (Look—our chips are “official”! They have numbers and everything!)

Note: I used the same large non-denom solid set for years in our tourney, before assembling a large Jack set. No issues at all with confusion with the solids, because I used the same color progression as the previous hosts, only with better quality chips. When I’ve added a new high value color for deeper stacked events, it had no denom... There wasn’t mass panic.

For variety, I do rotate chips in our cash game, though not the tourney. The tourney players seem to prefer to see the same ones every time... I think because stack management / ICM is more of an issue and familiarity helps in quickly sizing up what you have left and what others still have.

The cash sets all have denoms, but that’s just because it’s rarer to find spotted non-denoms. But I’m confident my group would be fine with rotations of non-denoms in cash as well. Almost all of the chips in our cash pots are 5s anyway, so there’s not much to remember.

Lol, you will never convince the masses that you are correct, or that your method/madness is superior to using denominated chips. Never.

But feel free to keep trying.

 

[Sal Bandini]

Thought experiment: Say you go to Hell after you die and are forced to play in a tourney every day which uses non-denom chips.

You know you are in hell and not heaven, because in heaven they only play cash games.

 

[msuroo]

Lol, I left PCF for a year and @Taghkanic is still banging this drum, huh? I actually respect your dedication to this, and think it's perfectly reasonable that you prefer the aesthetics of chips without denominations. But you always try to make the extra leap that because we could all get by without them that they make a chip objectively and actively worse, and I'll just never get there on that.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Because it looks cooler

Yes, this is one of my reasons. My subjective opinion is that is looks cooler.

Look—our chips are “official”! They have numbers and everything!

Yes, this is also one of my reasons. It feels more official, in my subjective opinion.

it feels like it's incomplete without the denomination

This as well, I agree with Eddie.


All reasons above can be found in the list I wrote:

1. Among my crowd it's luxurious. Most hosts here have undenominated dice chips. Even though china clays are (a bit) more luxurious than dice chips, it's the denom that does it for my players, not the feel. Would be the same if I owned Paulsons.
2. It's nice to not need to explain the denoms each tourney.
3. It's even nicer to explain to the new guy (who is used to playing with undenominated chips and asked a bit too quickly which color is worth what) in a veeery sarcastic tone:
Me: "you see, the green with pink spots and the big 25, that one is worth 25"
Him: "oh, I didn't see the..."
Me: "...and the black chip with blue spots..."
Him: "yeah, no worries, I g..."
Me: "...with the big 100 on it..."
Him: "a hundred, I kn..."
Me: "...is worth a hundred."
Him: "I KNOW!! I SEE IT NOW..."
Me: "...And the purple chips..."
Him: "FOR F*CK'S SAKE, SHUT THE F@CK UP!!!"
4. Most of all, for me the denom is not "in the way" of other design possibilities, which I think you wrote in the other thread. IMO it is a natural part of the chip, it fits in and complements the design. When I see beautiful non-denominated chips, I still feel that something is missing.

Did you at all read it? Are these opinions "wrong"? You see, even if I agree with you that nobody frequently reads the denoms, I still prefer denoms. Does that make me wrong?

And this:

View attachment 589847

was my "I'll see my way out" gif, because this forum is for people with more than one set. But don't worry, I won't leave until everyone agrees with my views on antes!

 

[pltrgyst]

What do you think about a tournament set with non denomination chips?

I think it makes no sense whatsoever.

Tournaments are not like cash games, where the stakes being played dictate the denominations needed, and are likely to vary for any given group over time. Appropriately denominated chips are essential at each stakes level to avoid player confusion and mistakes.

For tournaments, there is no practical advantage to using non-denominated chips. The "stakes" -- the chip denominations -- do not ever need to change, since all that matters in a tournament is the ratio between denominations. You only need one tournament set, starting with any lowest denomination you like, to serve you well for the rest of your life. So long as the chips are denominated, your tournament can run at optimal efficiency in terms of time and minimal player mistakes.

 

[JustinInMN]

[whispers]
Tournament chips use multipliers

What do you mean? No one has a tournament where the denominations are divided by 10 or anything.

 

[JustinInMN]

Back to @AK Chip 's original point. If it's a reaaaaaaaly cool design, I could be convinced. Hence my request for pr0n.

 

[Mr Winberg]

You only need one tournament set

unless you are using exactly ONE set all of the time..... in which case, GTFO.

 

[pltrgyst]

There's one troublemaker in every crowd.

 

[upNdown]

I’ve argued before—with little success—that if you are expending mental effort in a game literally reading the value of chips off the label, you probably are probably going to lose no matter what the chips look like.

I'm curious to hear exactly what you mean by this.
I would argue that the less effort I need to put into chip denominations, the better. Which means I want traditional colors and clear denominations. I've found that when I'm playing somewhere with a denomination/color lineup that I'm not used to, id does throw me off my game. There are occasional misclicks. But I feel pretty strongly that ANY effort I have to put into the chips is detracting from my game. Probably just a tiny bit, but still. If it interferes with the natural flow of my game, maybe I'm giving off tells, maybe I'm overthinking things, or maybe I'm just worrying about doing those things.
So yeah, I'm very much against nondenominated chips.

 

[AK Chip]

Back to @AK Chip 's original point. If it's a reaaaaaaaly cool design, I could be convinced. Hence my request for pr0n.

Nothing worked out yet,

 

[philhut]

Get a large piece of cardboard or simply a 8x11 paper....tape 1 of each poker chip to the paper/board or whatever you have posted with a = and denom beside it so all can see. This you will have your white chips = 1 for example and green = 25 for example, Something like the picture below but customized with your chips and the denominations you want. The cards are obviously not required but was the first picture i found that showed the example.

 

[upNdown]

Get a large piece of cardboard or simply a 8x11 paper....tape 1 of each poker chip to the paper/board or whatever you have posted with a = and denom beside it so all can see. This you will have your white chips = 1 for example and green = 25 for example, Something like the picture below but customized with your chips and the denominations you want. The cards are obviously not required but was the first picture i found that showed the example.

yes. you could also grill a burger over an oil lamp improvised from a can of tuna and a shoe lace.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Anyone that thinks that denoms are unnecessary has never played with a color-blind player.

My first set had no denoms. It was the stupidest mistake I've ever made in my chipping career - and I've made a lot of them.

No denoms = the worst advice you can ever give. May as well recommend dice chips.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Anyone that thinks that denoms are unnecessary has never played with a color-blind player.

My first set had no denoms. It was the stupidest mistake I've ever made in my chipping career - and I've made a lot of them.

No denoms = the worst advice you can ever give. May as well recommend dice chips.

Seems like someone hasn't tried the ole chips taped on cardboard trick...

 

[upNdown]

What do you think about a tournament set with non denomination chips?

I can see guys who do it for cash sets. If you're hosting different games at different stakes and want to be able to do it with one cash set, okay. I don't like it, but I get it. But for tournaments? There's really no reason why somebody should have to change the denominations of the tournament chips. If you want to raise the stakes, increase the buyin. If you want a longer tournament, increase the length of the blinds.
If all you have onhand is some undenominated chips and you want to have a tournamnet, sure, put up chip value posters and go for it. But if you're planning this thing out in advance I can see no reason to buy tournament chips with no numbers on them.

 

[JustinInMN]

I would argue that the less effort I need to put into chip denominations, the better. Which means I want traditional colors and clear denominations. I've found that when I'm playing somewhere with a denomination/color lineup that I'm not used to, id does throw me off my game. There are occasional misclicks. But I feel pretty strongly that ANY effort I have to put into the chips is detracting from my game.

Yup, @Taghkanic is basically saying you're a simp that deserves to lose for letting it detract from your game.

 

[JustinInMN]

But if you're planning this thing out in advance I can see no reason to buy tournament chips with no numbers on them.

At first blush, I agree, but I would make an exception if the design is really cool, but nobody is giving me the pr0n I need to make the case .

 

[Poker Zombie]

Seems like someone hasn't tried the ole chips taped on cardboard trick...

No chips taped to cardboard - that's just jankey. I do have the colors on the big monitor in the room. I also offer index cards with the blind structure every event, and that card also had the color/denom key.

It simply doesn't help the guy that sees many colors as being similar or the same.

 

[CrazyEddie]

What do you mean? No one has a tournament where the denominations are divided by 10 or anything.

I was being flippant, but to more seriously make my point: In a tournament, you buy in for, say, twenty dollars, and yet you play with thousands of.. well, not dollars, but units. At no point during the tournament do the denominations represent the amount of money you have at stake - when you bet with a T100 you're not risking 100 of anything that you'd easily recognize - it's not 100 dollars or 100 cents or 100 pesos. And when you take the top place, having raked in all 100,000 chips from the field, you cash out for - a few hundred bucks.

It's a comparable situation running a cash game with a multiplier. You buy in with, say, twenty dollars, and get 100 in chips. Just like in a tournament, those hundred dollars on the table don't represent a hundred dollars in your pocket.

A cash game with a multiplier is like a tournament when it comes to chip denominations; the face value isn't the real value, but it doesn't matter - you know the actual stakes you're playing for: it's the amount you spent on your buy-in! And knowing what the real value is of any chip, stack, or pot is even more straight-forward in a multiplier cash game versus a tournament, since a) you can cash out at any time rather than having to wait until your final position is determined and b) dividing by five (or whatever) is pretty easy versus having to consider ICM and whatnot.

Playing with a multiplier is of course a personal and aesthetic preference, but it's hardly a mistake, and I for one would consider it preferable to undenominated chips, given the choice. And for a lot of us it's the only way that those beautiful high-value chips are ever going to hit the felt.

 

[JustinInMN]

It's a comparable situation running a cash game with a multiplier. You buy in with, say, twenty dollars, and get 100 in chips. Just like in a tournament, those hundred dollars on the table don't represent a hundred dollars in your pocket.

Ah. Well FWIW, I was speaking really to multipliers in cash games and as to why one would never really need to change denoms in a tournament the same way. I see what you are saying about this similarity, but there is a key difference. In a cash game, every chip has a corresponding cash value (even if you have to use arithmetic to figure it out), in a tournament, you can lose all of your chips and still cash something out.

As for doing multipliers in cash games, plenty of digital ink has been spilled on risk of banking errors or lost chips changing values between games, so I'm personally not a fan of that either, at least as if you are planning chips, plan for all contingencies. If you are just working with what's available, then the best is what you can do.

 

[aaronroch]

1 in 12 American men are colorblind. Hence denominations AND spot progression, especially on red & green chips the spots should be a lot different.

Beyond that, I cannot count the number of times I have seen players awkwardly call a bet by counting out the same number of each color as the raiser bet. They don’t ask, they just match what they see without having ANY idea how much they are betting.
If you want to punish your newer/dumber/worse players, so be it- I prefer it if they have a good time and keep coming back. Some of them are nice people and I like hanging out with them...

 

[Poker Zombie]

Get a large piece of cardboard or simply a 8x11 paper....tape 1 of each poker chip to the paper/board or whatever you have posted with a = and denom beside it so all can see. This you will have your white chips = 1 for example and green = 25 for example, Something like the picture below but customized with your chips and the denominations you want. The cards are obviously not required but was the first picture i found that showed the example.

Just re-read this post, looking at the denoms selected. 10, 20, 50, 100, 500.

As a basic rule, never take poker advice from a website where the author has obviously never played poker.

Note: I know this wasn't yours, you were just looking for an example. However I think it proves that the whole concept of undenominated chips is supported by someone that has no real-world experience..