Cash Game How many workhorse chips do you prefer in a single table cash game set? (1 Viewer)

[CrazyEddie]

We play deep. Big decisions.

I'm curious about how preflop betting usually goes in your game. If the blinds are .25/.50 and stacks are hundreds or thousands of BB deep, do people open for for $1.50 or for $10? Do people shove all-in five ways preflop or do you play four streets of poker?

 

[upNdown]

Because people are retards and "play .25/.25 like it's 1/2" meaning they don't bet based on the blinds, they just enjoy throwing money in the pot.

I don’t know about calling people stupid; I really don’t. For my .25/.50 game, the typical preflop open bet is probably $1.50 to $2.50 - a $3 preflop open is big. Other games I’ve played at the same stakes, a $6 open is standard. Is one game playing dumber than the other? I dunno. Probably my game is a little small and some other games are a little big. Is the ideal in the middle? Or is it just legit to say that the ideal varies from house to house?
Anyway, I don’t even know about .25/.25 - I don’t think I’ve ever played it. Should .25/.25 play half as big as .25/.50? If so, I guess I’ll allow that the $1 should be the workhorse chip for that game.
And for .25/50, the way I see it is that the $1 should be the workhorse for the first two streets and the $5 should be the workhorse for the turn and river. I’ll spare you the math and let you play out a typical hand in your head.

But maybe one question we’re not asking is this - why is the $5 the workhorse for $1/2? It’s a small chip for that game. And maybe that explains why PCFers like lots of big piles of them. Maybe $1/2 should really be played with a stupid $10 chip.

 

[CrazyEddie]

There should never be any need to bet a barrel worth of chips or more in one bet.

A poll I really want to see: "How often do your players bet a barrel or more - or even half a barrel - in one bet (not counting all-in bets)?"

If you have piles and piles of chips in front of you, you can just use a big denom for a big bet, and that would be "efficient". But you also can push out a stack, and that would be cool and fun, but also probably annoying. I'm curious as to what people actually do.

 

[Eloe2000]

FWiW I played 1/3 last night at the Borgata and there was maybe 60x$1s and maybe 10x$25s on the table and the rest were all $5s. One guy even asked to change up to a $100 and the dealer refused said to keep the $5s.

 

[upNdown]

A poll I really want to see: "How often do your players bet a barrel or more - or even half a barrel - in one bet (not counting all-in bets)?"

If you have piles and piles of chips in front of you, you can just use a big denom for a big bet, and that would be "efficient". But you also can push out a stack, and that would be cool and fun, but also probably annoying. I'm curious as to what people actually do.

My game? Next to never. Because a barrel is either going to be a $20 bet (and what psycho would push for award 20 whites when they can toss out 4 reds) or $100, which is more than a buyin and just rarely happens - at that point, we’re more likely all in.
But I will say that I do see big barrel+ sized bets happening on streamed cash games and WSOP tournaments fairly often. Usually it’s a river bet, but still, it seems to happen quite a bit. So maybe I’m just not playing deep enough. We’re usually a lot closer to 100bb stacks. I’d love to get involved in a game that’s playing 500bb deep, but that’s really a different culture; I’m lucky to fill my table as it is.

 

[JustinInMN]

We played 0.50-0.50 40max 5 handed last week. I didn't put any fives on the table until 300 singles were in play. Worked great.

There is just something about 40 x 5 or 60 x 5 being the standard when playing 1-2 NL in a casino that makes me want to do 40 x 1 or 60 x 1 in a home game. (Plus I have enough singles for a limit game in my set.)

As with the original @Eloe2000 definition, I consider the single the workhorse if the big blind is under a dollar. If it's a dollar or more, then I consider the five the workhorse. I don't think I would ever spread a game at home with a workhorse larger than the five.

 

[swana]

FWiW I played 1/3 last night at the Borgata and there was maybe 60x$1s and maybe 10x$25s on the table and the rest were all $5s. One guy even asked to change up to a $100 and the dealer refused said to keep the $5s.

I wonder if this is to help prevent angling? As in, if nobody has $100 chips, then they can't be buried somewhere in stacks of $5s

 

[CrazyEddie]

Probably my game is a little small and some other games are a little big. Is the ideal in the middle? Or is it just legit to say that the ideal varies from house to house?
Anyway, I don’t even know about .25/.25 - I don’t think I’ve ever played it. Should .25/.25 play half as big as .25/.50? If so, I guess I’ll allow that the $1 should be the workhorse chip for that game.

The dirty little secret is that blinds actually don't matter. In a world of pure GTO robots opens will be 2x the blinds or thereabouts, and later bets and raises will be assorted fractions of the pot. In the real world some people are going to limp every hand and some people are going to open 20x the blinds (quite possibly the very same people).

The folks who open 20x aren't even necessarily making a strategic mistake! If they have a hand and know they'll get called by worse, they should open as large as they know will get called. And even the callers aren't necessarily making a strategic mistake, either. Supposedly, the blinds are the reason for betting, and without meaningful blinds/antes there's nothing to play for, but in no-limit poker that's not true; in NL you can play with inconsequential blinds (or even no blinds!) because you're playing to win the chips the other players still have in front of them, not the chips that are in the pot. A player can rationally enter a pot that's giving them literally zero odds, knowing that they have implied odds against callers; two players can both rationally enter a pot with zero dead money by each believing that they're a better player than the other and thus have implied odds against their opponent.

The upshot is that the stakes of your game aren't determined by the blinds, they're determined by the amount of money players are willing to put in the middle of the table every hand. A second consequence is that inviting a 5/10 player to your 1/2 game is going to change the stakes, blinds notwithstanding, and you need to be prepared for that.

 

[Eloe2000]

I wonder if this is to help prevent angling? As in, if nobody has $100 chips, then they can't be buried somewhere in stacks of $5s

I don’t think l so. It was a very friendly table and the dealers were very friendly. Seemed honestly like they just liked to roll with 5s. And the table was super limpy so the lack of 25s didn’t impact the game.

 

[JustinInMN]

The biggest factor is to actually minimize denominations, not chips. The proper thing to do is add the total of each denomination, mental math is much easier with only 2-3 denoms in play. It can get a bit more unwieldy with 4-5 denoms in play (which is why I am not a huge fan of tournament stacks with more than 4 starting denoms.)

I think the trouble of counting "piles" of chips is overrated. Once you have "counted" one barrel of a workhorse chips, it's a simple matter to make everything else level when having to count a stack. But I would suggest, counting 120 workhorse chips is nowhere near three-times as hard as counting 40. It's probably less than twice as hard. Once you establish the first barrel, it's easy to make sure everything else is level. Players keeping their stacks 20x, or some consistent number makes this even easier. And we are all on this forum because we value chips of high enough quality where they stack reliably level, this is a big reason why.

So when counting a stack, the ideal mix for me is like 80% or more of the workhorse denom, then no more than 10 blind chips or value-store chips.

So again, my answer for this situation is 400 chips. I, like many other posters, am confused by the hard 200 chip limit applying to singles for fractional-blind games. Especially those with buy ins under 40. I get that if you are doing 100 max with 0.25-0.50 blind, which I know is common among many PCFers in this thread, that you don't want to do a rack of singles, mixing some fives in makes some sense.

 

[CrazyEddie]

The biggest factor is to actually minimize denominations, not chips.

but but but...

I paid good money for those pretty chips, I want to see them on the table!

 

[CrazyEddie]

This is the real reason to play deep-stack poker, so that you can have big piles of chips and get the high denoms into play!

 

[Taghkanic]

I have 500 workhorse chips in one of my cash sets, and 300 in another. 300 is not enough. 500 seems excessive, but we actually had them all in play in my most recent cash game.

That’s partly because I am a little short on the next higher denom in my 500-chip set, so I use more of the workhorses... So while I voted for 500, really I think 400 is probably best if one has enough of the next highest value chip.

Other observation: While in theory it might be more streamlined to have fewer of the workhorse chips on the table, and more of the next larger denom, I think players just enjoy bigger piles of chips. It feels more satisfying in a 1/2 game to be sitting behind (say) a couple barrels of $1s, 4 barrels of $5s plus a handful of $25s in a 1/2 game than to replace some of those fives with 1/5th as many $25s.

Lastly, I find there’s less change to be made and easier chops when more of the workhorse chips are in play.

 

[upNdown]

I, like many other posters, am confused by the hard 200 chip limit applying to singles for fractional-blind games.

Because these are my singles, okay! They have no pretty side paint and they're boring af and I need some color on the table so just SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JustinInMN]

I think when I finally order that custom set, I’m gonna make it 550 $5s, in hopes of tilting some of you whackos.

I did actually order 550 x 5 when I did my mega set a few years ago.
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/thre...edition-2020-custom-43mm-sunfly-hybrid.50781/

(did 25 extra of each denom 0.10-20, and 20 extra 25s, and 5 extra 100s)

I paid good money for those pretty chips, I want to see them on the table!

The aforementioned 25s have seen play once in the two years since I took on this set, the hundreds have never made it.

 

[Eloe2000]

I have 500 workhorse chips in one of my cash sets, and 300 in another. 300 is not enough. 500 seems excessive, but we actually had them all in play in my most recent cash game. But that’s partly because I am a little short on the next higher denom.

So I voted for 500, but really I think 400 is probably best if one has enough of the next highest value chip.

And fwiw people seemed to have been missing one word in the poll question… “How many workhorse chips do you prefer for a fun single table?”

I specifically wasn’t looking for efficiency. I have 300x now and we max it out every game. I definitely want at least one more rack available but thinking I might as well add more. Even just in case I host two short handed tables at some point.

 

[JustinInMN]

“How many workhorse chips do you prefer for a fun single table?”

I specifically wasn’t looking for efficiency.

In defense of some of the posters, inefficiency is a fun sucker if counting stacks for all ins gets too slow. So I can see their defense.

But at the same time, the 200 singles only rule that a few posters here swear by does not make sense either. Especially in shallower games.

 

[Mandos]

The upshot is that the stakes of your game aren't determined by the blinds, they're determined by the amount of money players are willing to put in the middle of the table every hand. A second consequence is that inviting a 5/10 player to your 1/2 game is going to change the stakes, blinds notwithstanding, and you need to be prepared for that.

As an aside, this is a point that doesn't get enough appreciation, especially around discussions of maximum rebuy amount. If you allow rebuys to match the biggest stack you're de facto changing the stakes of the game, even if you don't want to think of it that way.

 

[Taghkanic]

The upshot is that the stakes of your game aren't determined by the blinds, they're determined by the amount of money players are willing to put in the middle of the table every hand.

Exactly.

The last two sessions I have hosted have been nominally 1/2 games, but there are a few guys who have been opening to 15, 20, 25, or more. Others still open to more usual sizes, in the 5-12 range, more if there are limpers.

Last time we had a $2,800 hand… at 1/2. Ridiculous.

This has created a conundrum for me as host, in that we are still using fairly standard 1/2 min/max buyins of $100-$300. So a very large % of the players are effectively shortstacked.

This is good for forcing rebuys but bad if you like to play more than one or two street poker.

So I’m debating: Has this basically become a 2/5 game, which should have more like a $1000 max buyin?

If I keep it at 1/2, I feel like I either need to increase the max buyin or have a half the max stack option.

The funny thing is that in the past when I’ve hosted 2/5 games, these same players still only wanted to buyin for $2-300 at a pop.

 

[philhut]

Adding one more thing....having chips that stack comparatively equally is also very important if you plan to dole out bunches of $5 chips. I have avoided worn $5 chips due to tilting issues I would have that the chips would stack unevenly forcing manual counts of every stack. Manual counts are fine if needed or when there is a dedicated dealer but this is a royal pain in a player dealt game to do over and over again with workhorse chips.

 

[Mortalpawn]

So if the workhorse chip is the chip above the BB chip ($5 for a $1 BB for example), and people buy-in at 100 BB on average, at most we would have a barrel of workhorse chips per person for the initial buyin. This works out to 200 workhorse chips for a 10 person table for the initial buy-in if we ignore the BB chips. Two racks.

I'm guessing you would want to start putting more value storage chips out for rebuys if only to make estimating pots easier. So I'm thinking another rack of workhorse chips is good for rebuys.

That brings the total to 300 workhorse chips for a 10 person table (3 racks), representing about 1500 BB in dollar value or 15 buy-ins. Yes you could add another rack as the stacks will look bigger, but as was pointed out in other recent threads having too many chips can make it very hard to estimate the size of pots - so bringing in more value chips at this point is probably better.

 

[CrazyEddie]

So I’m debating: Has this basically become a 2/5 game, which should have more like a $1000 max buyin?

If I keep it at 1/2, I feel like I either need to increase the max buyin or have a half the max stack option.

My view - and I don't have much experience here, so don't listen to me - is that what matters first is the buyin, and that you should set the buy-in (either via rules or social expectations) so that people are comfortable losing a few buy-ins in a night (or numerous buy-ins, if that's how your players play). And then second, set your blinds so that people's stacks are as deep as you want your game to play, whether that's 50bb or 500bb. And then third, and this is the secret trick: play pot-limit pre, so that the blinds actually mean something and people don't open-shove their entire 100bb stack just for grins and giggles because they're rolled for a game ten times the size they're actually playing in.

 

[LeLe]

Exactly.

The last two sessions I have hosted have been nominally 1/2 games, but there are a few guys who have been opening to 15, 20, 25, or more. Others still open to more usual sizes, in the 5-12 range, more if there are limpers.

Last time we had a $2,800 hand… at 1/2. Ridiculous.

This has created a conundrum for me as host, in that we are still using fairly standard 1/2 min/max buyins of $100-$300. So a very large % of the players are effectively shortstacked.

This is good for forcing rebuys but bad if you like to play more than one or two street poker.

So I’m debating: Has this basically become a 2/5 game, which should have more like a $1000 max buyin?

If I keep it at 1/2, I feel like I either need to increase the max buyin or have a half the max stack option.

The funny thing is that in the past when I’ve hosted 2/5 games, these same players still only wanted to buyin for $2-300 at a pop.

My game that I host go with starting stack 100bb, 1st rebuy 100bb 2nd rebuy 200bb

Main reasons are to keep the game more friendly to my friends wallet incase they are running real bad and also to discourage any grinder to my game

Stake are going to automatically raise when there are more cash on the table when everyone get deep stack

 

[JustinInMN]

As an aside, this is a point that doesn't get enough appreciation, especially around discussions of maximum rebuy amount. If you allow rebuys to match the biggest stack you're de facto changing the stakes of the game, even if you don't want to think of it that way.

Agreed so hard. I have completely set aside the big-stack match option. If you make the original max deep enough, there shouldn't be a reason to compound how huge the game plays by raising the cap just because chips consolidate over one big hand.

If the max starts at 200 BB, then every player has the opportunity to win roughly 200BB from another player in a given hand. Why does this ever need to double to 400BB just because someone won a flip? If anything, an alternate rule where a player that just lost more than 200BB in a hand in a rare instance where they were covered by a bigger stack could rebuy to stack, would make a little more sense. Maybe that's the origin of the half-the-big-stack compromise?

 

[upNdown]

play pot-limit pre

 

[Eloe2000]

My game that I host go with starting stack 100bb, 1st rebuy 100bb 2nd rebuy 200bb

Main reasons are to keep the game more friendly to my friends wallet incase they are running real bad and also to discourage any grinder to my game

Stake are going to automatically raise when there are more cash on the table when everyone get deep stack

Agreed so hard. I have completely set aside the big-stack match option. If you make the original max deep enough, there shouldn't be a reason to compound how huge the game plays by raising the cap just because chips consolidate over one big hand.

If the max starts at 200 BB, then every player has the opportunity to win roughly 200BB from another player in a given hand. Why does this ever need to double to 400BB just because someone won a flip? If anything, an alternate rule where a player that just lost more than 200BB in a hand in a rare instance where they were covered by a bigger stack could rebuy to stack, would make a little more sense. Maybe that's the origin of the half-the-big-stack compromise?

We do set buy-in/re-buys and it works really well for a weekly friendly but competitive game. Absolutely no chance in changing that. Bigger isn’t always better. Stability is the key to this specific game that I host.

 

[ArielVer18]

For 25¢/25¢ and 25¢/50¢ NL, the workhorse chip is $1. Anyone who claims the workhorse chip for those stakes is actually $5 are actually playing much bigger than the blinds imply.

Every player's preference for the number of $1s they have in front of them is different. If you have another $1s heavy chipset, I'd say try selling $1s until someone wants a color up.

My crew doesn't play limit and don't have enough experience efficiently building towers with multiple racks of chips, so typically only 1200-1400 $1s will be on a single table.

btw, I think the workhorse chip for 25¢/25¢ is actually the quarter chip, but that's a whole different debate.

 

[Aray12]

I think 400 is plenty

 

[Schmendr1ck]

I consider my .25/.50 100 max game to have two workhorses: $1 and $5.

I like 3 racks of $1s and 3-4 racks of $5s for a nine handed NLHE game. YMMV.

 

[Rhodeman77]

The blinds don’t determine the size of the game. Those are just the minimum bets to get the action started. The max buy-in and the players desire/willingness to rebuy/add-on that will determine the size of the game.

If a 25/25c game has a $25 max buy-in it will play very differently than a 25/25c $100 max game with a match the big stack option for rebuys. In the $25 max game 25c and $1’s are probably are that are needed with maybe a few $5’s for rebuys. In the second game lots of $5’s will be in play and will used more than the $1’s.

This is why many game are referred to by the buy in amount and not the blinds when being discussed i.e. NL25, NL100, NL500.