Anybody else think we should stop using the words "spot progression?" (7 Viewers)

[upNdown]

Spot progression is something made up by chippers, that nobody can agree on.

I'm happy to be educated on "spot progression," so please correct me if I got any of that wrong.

Since spot progression is a fiction, maybe we should just stop using those words? Whether we're evaluating existing sets, or we're discussing edge spots for a new set of customs we should be discussing it more broadly. Spots don't have to go from simpler to more complex, ascending with the denomination value. They can progress like that if you want (if you think you know the right order, of course, because nobody can agree on that.) But maybe you want the same spot pattern on each chip. Or maybe you want your favorite complex patterns on chips that get into play the most. Or maybe you have an artistic brain and can come up with ways that spots would interact together that I've never even considered. We should have a phrase that means "how the spots work together within the set," or something like that.

I know the recent polls are just goofy polls and I shouldn't take them too seriously. But we've been asked to evaluate chips based on a few factors, one of which is this mythical spot progression. And because of that, I see people lowering scores on beautiful chips, because they have no spot progression, WHEN THOSE CHIPS WERE NEVER INTENDED TO HAVE SPOT PROGRESSION BECAUSE SPOT PROGRESSION ISN'T A REAL THING, AND IT PROBABLY WASN'T EVEN MADE UP WHEN THOSE CHIPS WERE MADE. It's madness, and maybe we should stop.

 

[TheOffalo]

Cross post this to the unpopular opinions thread!

I got a few comments on spot progressions on some mocks I did. Found it interesting. I guess if you’re designing your own and want to have a progression then it should make sense and, well, progress, but it shouldn’t have to be a thing in every set of chips.

 

[ktran]

I mean technically you can add progression through the number to spots. Single strip on the first, then the next chip has 2 and so on. Technically that is progression. It is progressing to a more advanced design. I think some people just use that reference even if it's not progressing in design to just describe the what they are talking about. I don't think most people accurately use the term though. Also the shapes of the spots can show progression or at least match the chip's theme. I mean the same can be said for the inlay. The inlay can progress from less complicated to more complicated or less sides of the shape to more sides of the shape. In most cases it's probably inlay shapes than progression.

 

[FDLmold]

You are discussing two things. Spot Progression is a thing that exists, and I don't think anybody has a meaning for it other than "as the denominations change, the spot patterns change".

Now what is a correct or proper spot progression? Everybody will have a different opinion.

 

[BearMetal]

I look at spot progression as whether the chips work together as a set with respect to their spots. It doesn't mean that they have to necessarily progress in complexity.

 

[ktran]

I look at spot progression as whether the chips work together as a set with respect to their spots. It doesn't mean that they have to necessarily progress in complexity.

Yeah it could be seen as that too. It just change from chip to chip instead of staying the same so it's seen as progression. I first heard it from Hobbyphilic when he referred the inlay shapes to progress from one to another instead of being all the same. Progression can mean several things like advancing or moving one note to another note for music. I think people mainly use the term spot progression to just say it's not all the same design like some tournament chips can be. And chips that have the same design in a tournament set can be described as a uniform design.

 

[ktran]

Spot progression is something made up by chippers, that nobody can agree on.

I'm happy to be educated on "spot progression," so please correct me if I got any of that wrong.

Since spot progression is a fiction, maybe we should just stop using those words? Whether we're evaluating existing sets, or we're discussing edge spots for a new set of customs we should be discussing it more broadly. Spots don't have to go from simpler to more complex, ascending with the denomination value. They can progress like that if you want (if you think you know the right order, of course, because nobody can agree on that.) But maybe you want the same spot pattern on each chip. Or maybe you want your favorite complex patterns on chips that get into play the most. Or maybe you have an artistic brain and can come up with ways that spots would interact together that I've never even considered. We should have a phrase that means "how the spots work together within the set," or something like that.

I know the recent polls are just goofy polls and I shouldn't take them too seriously. But we've been asked to evaluate chips based on a few factors, one of which is this mythical spot progression. And because of that, I see people lowering scores on beautiful chips, because they have no spot progression, WHEN THOSE CHIPS WERE NEVER INTENDED TO HAVE SPOT PROGRESSION BECAUSE SPOT PROGRESSION ISN'T A REAL THING, AND IT PROBABLY WASN'T EVEN MADE UP WHEN THOSE CHIPS WERE MADE. It's madness, and maybe we should stop.

Some people like uniform design and some people like different design on each chip. It is just preference. I don't think people are out there to make up something just to say they don't like the design. Some people prefer more reserve designs and some people prefer more bold designs. I personally like different designs/spot progression because it clearly distinguishes it more rather than the color alone. It also in some case allows the use the same color of other chips to some degree. The more distinguishable one chip from the other, the less confusion for people who have not so great vision, color-blind people, or drunk people. I mean being more distinguishable can be seen as a more helpful thing so higher rating. Art can be uniform and also progressing. Both look good if designed right. As long it looks good it takes more time to design and not just changing the color and can be seen as a higher rating. I mean now a days it's more designs (besides tournament) probably because of security and that also can be seen as a technical rating.

 

[bergs]

YOU CAN HAVE MY SPOT PROGRESSIONS WHEN YOU PRY THEM FROM MY COLD…DEAD…CLAY.

 

[Meddler2]

Couldn't agree more. When contemplating a custom set, I put all my money on the workhorse chip; either the $1 or $5 chip for my cash games. I won't spend money for level 5 or 6 $100 denominated chips (heck even a $25 chip) when those chips rarely see the felt. Summary: Spot progression makes little sense to me for chips to sit in a case.

 

[ktran]

Couldn't agree more. When contemplating a custom set, I put all my money on the workhorse chip; either the $1 or $5 chip for my cash games. I won't spend money for level 5 or 6 $100 denominated chips (heck even a $25 chip) when those chips rarely see the felt. Summary: Spot progression makes little sense to me for chips to sit in a case.

I'm in the same boat when not using $25 and $100. I like to buy ample $5s, but someone on a budget would use some $25 and don't have ample $5s. It would fit in a smaller travel case too.

 

[Rhodeman77]

I like the concept of a progression so that it easy to tell chips apart from each other in stacks from across the table. That is the real purpose of varied spot colors, sizes, and shapes, to prevent dirty stacks in dealer trays and in player stacks.

Having a uniform spot pattern can make that more difficult.

I also go with the spot pattern I like the most on my workhorse chips and build around that. Having 4 chips all with 4 colors and almost no base color showing is not appealing at all to me. It is hard to tell the chips apart then, they all look like a bowl of Skittles at that point.

 

[rowlin]

No

 

[Seeking Alpha Social Club]

You know it when you see it

I agree that spots don't have to go from simpler to more complex, ascending with the denomination value. However, the fact that you explained it that way (the same way I and many others would explain it) tells me that we have close agreement about what spot progression looks like. It doesn't have to exist in a set, and often doesn't, but I personally like it.

So, is it fiction? No. I suspect you can find a few casino sets with good spot progression, so I don't think it's just chippers that made it up and use it.. Plus, it has been fairly well defined a couple of times in this thread. We may not always agree that the progression is a good one, but that's just preferrence.

Does it have to exist for a set to be awesome? No, definitely not.

Should we stop talking about it? Without it, some of my favorite sets wouldn't be as awesome as they are. However, maybe if we stop talking about it, CPC will stop charging for it...LOL!!

One of these sets has spot progression and the other doesn't, but I won't tell you which is which...

 

[CrazyEddie]

Spot progression is something made up by chippers

Just because the casinos never intended for spot progression to be a thing doesn't mean it's not a thing.

It's not a thing you care about, but it's a thing.

Maybe you think other people shouldn't care about it either, but, well, too bad. Other people are other people. Maybe you can change their minds. Good luck with that.

[fwiw I don't care about it very much but I sometimes do, kind-of, a little bit]

 

[JeepologyOffroad]

I look at spot progression as whether the chips work together as a set with respect to their spots. It doesn't mean that they have to necessarily progress in complexity.

Agreed, but I also don’t want my $100 chip to be a solid when the rest are spotted nicely. As long as it’s not extreme then of course it doesn’t have to be more complex. Next we will have to define “complex”

I also go with the spot pattern I like the most on my workhorse chips and build around that.

100% this.

 

[BearMetal]

Agreed, but I also don’t want my $100 chip to be a solid when the rest are spotted nicely. As long as it’s not extreme then of course it doesn’t have to be more complex. Next we will have to define “complex”

Right, I do think that the higher value chips should have a more complex look to them. But as to how you arrive at that look I think is mostly up to your own tastes.

 

[Irish]

It's definitely not made up, and there's a rhyme and a reason for it. It's simply the idea of using more complex spots as you progress through a chip lineup, such that by simply looking at the chip in stacks from a distance (like through a security camera), you immediately have an idea if you're dealing with lower or higher denomination chips. There are lots of way to do chip progression - if that's your jam - but when taken in the context of creating a custom chip set, it's certainly not a rule, and there are lots of great looking sets that don't utilize the idea. Your money, get what you want!

 

[Beakertwang]

I believe I speak for the entire forum, when I say…

 

[Rbonus012]

Something is wrong here. It’s hard not to think about it lol.

 

[Ben8257]

If spot progression is not a thing, why are the majority of fracs in existence solid? And many of the casinos that use solid $1 chips don't have a frac. I would say they definitely tend to follow some type of spot progression, even though often the $25 gets left behind and I'm not totally sure why? Lol

Let's take PCAs

We all know the quarters were made later, 2 spot $.50, 414 $1, 4T18 $5, again a slight step back IMO 4d14 $25, 818 $100 and what ever you ca all that crazy shit on the $500, I definitely don't agree that there was no sense of spot progression when this was designed.

Let's look at our random frac collection here,

That is almost 400 different casino fracs on the left side there, what 4 have edge spots that touch and most that do have edge spots you can't see a second spot meaning they only have 2 - 3, definitely not very complex like the majority of higher value denoms. So to say casinos use no sense of "edge spot progression" I believe is absolutely false.

It really is what you like, for this one it starts high, works it's way down to the $25 and then our choice to go back up again, not perfect but we like it being wild on this particular set, just something different then solid frac and progressing upward.

Those Jerry's Nuggets are beautiful chips but very difficult to pull off in a set unless you make them a white $100, but in this ridiculous line up it just works for me! Would prefer the orange to be square rather than Triangles, that part I am not a huge fan of, but again it works in my eyes. We covered two tables with them at the Ohio meet up even with non chippers and had no issues and only compliments so that's what we have! Lol

Edge spot progression is real and I definitely use it as a factor when judging a line up.

 

[Rbonus012]

If spot progression is not a thing, why are the majority of fracs in existence solid? And many of the casinos that use solid $1 chips don't have a frac. I would say they definitely tend to follow some type of spot progression, even though often the $25 gets left behind and I'm not totally sure why? Lol

Let's take PCAs
View attachment 828251
We all know the quarters were made later, 2 spot $.50, 414 $1, 4T18 $5, again a slight step back IMO 4d14 $25, 818 $100 and what ever you ca all that crazy shit on the $500, I definitely don't agree that there was no sense of spot progression when this was designed.

Let's look at our random frac collection here,
View attachment 828255
That is almost 400 different casino fracs on the left side there, what 4 have edge spots that touch and most that do have edge spots you can't see a second spot meaning they only have 2 - 3, definitely not very complex like the majority of higher value denoms. So to say casinos use no sense of "edge spot progression" I believe is absolutely false.

It really is what you like, for this one it starts high, works it's way down to the $25 and then our choice to go back up again, not perfect but we like it being wild on this particular set, just something different then solid frac and progressing upward.
View attachment 828258
Those Jerry's Nuggets are beautiful chips but very difficult to pull off in a set unless you make them a white $100, but in this ridiculous line up it just works for me! Would prefer the orange to be square rather than Triangles, that part I am not a huge fan of, but again it works in my eyes. We covered two tables with them at the Ohio meet up even with non chippers and had no issues and only compliments so that's what we have! Lol

Edge spot progression is real and I definitely use it as a factor when judging a line up.

+1

 

[Josh Kifer]

No.

 

[upNdown]

If spot progression is not a thing, why are the majority of fracs in existence solid? And many of the casinos that use solid $1 chips don't have a frac. I would say they definitely tend to follow some type of spot progression, even though often the $25 gets left behind and I'm not totally sure why? Lol

Let's take PCAs
View attachment 828251
We all know the quarters were made later, 2 spot $.50, 414 $1, 4T18 $5, again a slight step back IMO 4d14 $25, 818 $100 and what ever you ca all that crazy shit on the $500, I definitely don't agree that there was no sense of spot progression when this was designed.

Let's look at our random frac collection here,
View attachment 828255
That is almost 400 different casino fracs on the left side there, what 4 have edge spots that touch and most that do have edge spots you can't see a second spot meaning they only have 2 - 3, definitely not very complex like the majority of higher value denoms. So to say casinos use no sense of "edge spot progression" I believe is absolutely false.

It really is what you like, for this one it starts high, works it's way down to the $25 and then our choice to go back up again, not perfect but we like it being wild on this particular set, just something different then solid frac and progressing upward.
View attachment 828258
Those Jerry's Nuggets are beautiful chips but very difficult to pull off in a set unless you make them a white $100, but in this ridiculous line up it just works for me! Would prefer the orange to be square rather than Triangles, that part I am not a huge fan of, but again it works in my eyes. We covered two tables with them at the Ohio meet up even with non chippers and had no issues and only compliments so that's what we have! Lol

Edge spot progression is real and I definitely use it as a factor when judging a line up.

I'm not sure how much fracs prove the point. Making fracs solid is kind of a no brainer because it's cheaper to produce them that way, and edge spots make it easier to count stacks from across the table - who cares how many fracs a guy has?
Its interesting though, because the reasons you wouldn't put spots on fracs might be the same reasons behind spot progression. But that doesn't make it so. Look at the Lakeshore in chips - solid fracs, spotted other chips, but no progresssion at all.

I haven't been in this hobby for 30 years, so I don't know what people were talking about, back in the '90s or earlier. It just feels to me like all this progression talk is stuff created by chippers, and I'd guess recently. If somebody can show me a Paulson catalog or any chip company marketing materials, or anything in print at all, that ever discussed spot progression, maybe you can change my mind.

 

[Rhodeman77]

@Ben8257 I agree those Jerry’s Nuggets make a great $100. If you ever want to split off the 60 (or less) in the split rack let me know. I’d like to increase the $100’s in my set.

 

[allforcharity]

Spot progression is a thing because some have made it so, and that's fine. What I don't like to see is this idea promoted as some sort of chip gospel, and the idea almost being forced on every person who posts a new design thread. Designs should be approached from a point of least constraints to let the creativity flow.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I understand the fracs being simple. It's a cost thing. The cheapest chip in your casino is going to be the most "stolen" chip that you have to keep replacing.

Beyond that, I own sets that have a uniform spot pattern across the set, and sets that have different patterns for each chip. My decision as to which set I use on any given night is never influenced by uniform or different spots.

I think "progression" is something a collector invented, when putting his chips in a box on the wall. "These look better in this glass box, so they are better looking chips." Note: I say collector, not a poker player, or anyone using the chips.

As far as chips on the table, what is "progression"? Big chips go on top or in front of the stack. The chips you bet with the most are probably on your dominant handed side of your pile. At the craps table all you see in front of you are the edges. As a theft-aware craps player, I put the biggest denoms in the middle of my rack exposing only the low value chips to a deft pilferer. Does "progression" matter, even in the slightest then?

People that yammer on about "proper spot progression" are simply spending too much time imprisoning lovely chips in display cases and not enough time actually playing with them.

 

[CrazyEddie]

I agree with @Poker Zombie and Jesus: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/thre...suggestions-welcome.71379/page-2#post-1445057

 

[Meddler2]

If spot progression is not a thing, why are the majority of fracs in existence solid? And many of the casinos that use solid $1 chips don't have a frac. I would say they definitely tend to follow some type of spot progression, even though often the $25 gets left behind and I'm not totally sure why? Lol

Let's take PCAs
View attachment 828251
We all know the quarters were made later, 2 spot $.50, 414 $1, 4T18 $5, again a slight step back IMO 4d14 $25, 818 $100 and what ever you ca all that crazy shit on the $500, I definitely don't agree that there was no sense of spot progression when this was designed.

Let's look at our random frac collection here,
View attachment 828255
That is almost 400 different casino fracs on the left side there, what 4 have edge spots that touch and most that do have edge spots you can't see a second spot meaning they only have 2 - 3, definitely not very complex like the majority of higher value denoms. So to say casinos use no sense of "edge spot progression" I believe is absolutely false.

It really is what you like, for this one it starts high, works it's way down to the $25 and then our choice to go back up again, not perfect but we like it being wild on this particular set, just something different then solid frac and progressing upward.
View attachment 828258
Those Jerry's Nuggets are beautiful chips but very difficult to pull off in a set unless you make them a white $100, but in this ridiculous line up it just works for me! Would prefer the orange to be square rather than Triangles, that part I am not a huge fan of, but again it works in my eyes. We covered two tables with them at the Ohio meet up even with non chippers and had no issues and only compliments so that's what we have! Lol

Edge spot progression is real and I definitely use it as a factor when judging a line up.

I wouldn't consider the secondary PCA $1 less complex than the $5 visually speaking. If there is any spot progression in a casino I surmise it's due more to an accident or tradition (fracs) and not due to much thought from a casino chip designer. (imo)

 

[allforcharity]

We should definitely stop using the words "side paint". It hurts my ears and my soul.

 

[Ben8257]

I understand the fracs being simple. It's a cost thing. The cheapest chip in your casino is going to be the most "stolen" chip that you have to keep replacing.

Beyond that, I own sets that have a uniform spot pattern across the set, and sets that have different patterns for each chip. My decision as to which set I use on any given night is never influenced by uniform or different spots.

I think "progression" is something a collector invented, when putting his chips in a box on the wall. "These look better in this glass box, so they are better looking chips." Note: I say collector, not a poker player, or anyone using the chips.

As far as chips on the table, what is "progression"? Big chips go on top or in front of the stack. The chips you bet with the most are probably on your dominant handed side of your pile. At the craps table all you see in front of you are the edges. As a theft-aware craps player, I put the biggest denoms in the middle of my rack exposing only the low value chips to a deft pilferer. Does "progression" matter, even in the slightest then?

People that yammer on about "proper spot progression" are simply spending too much time imprisoning lovely chips in display cases and not enough time actually playing with them.

I don't understand the correlation between "chip collector obsessed with spot progression" and not using chips. Are there not collectors that have fine chips and use them? @Lil Tuna with the Nevada Lodge comes to mind. Brie owns a beautiful set of minty PCA secondaries and they have been on the felt 3 times already, not everyday chips but definitely chips we use. So I am not sure where the connection is here MJ?

@upNdown I understand your point with the Lakeshores and they do get a ton of Praise, personally I wish there was some spot progression there, but also if not they maintained a uniform same pattern whereas in @Rbonus012 example above of the 20th Century they totally missed the mark by stepping back for a single denom. Again to each their own, but absolutely I am going to subtract points on the 20th Cen because they neither stepped it up nor followed the pattern. Am I not allowed my opinion here?

Like it or not a set with a nice progression is going to be more visually appealing to.most here on the forum and therefore going to most likely rank higher, want to abolish a term because you don't like it, not going to happen but ok. Still not going to change the way we percieve a line up.

We have new members everyday, ask one what they think about the 20th Century line up, ask them to point out any flaws they can see, I bet they say the same thing, what happened on the $25, maybe I'm wrong. But I plan to continue to use our accepted verbage "shuffles like butter" "hooker juice" "spot progression" I have seen previous threads requesting to abolish our terminology and after a few days those conversations fade away just as this one will.