^these
Spot progression is a thing because we (the majority) say it’s a thing (collectively recognize, in general terms, what the term/words represent).
Anybody else think we should stop using the words "spot progression?" (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter upNdown
- Start date
Spot progression is a thing because we (the majority) say it’s a thing (collectively recognize, in general terms, what the term/words represent).
FarmPoker85
Pair
As a relative newbie to chipping I will say I always thought spot progression was just the way it was. If the average person who has only ever used dice chips goes to a casino and sees racks of chips, the vast majority of the time the more complex chips are the higher denoms and it makes sense for it to be that way because, let’s face it, that’s all they look for. Flashy chips are worth more than plain ones. Now that I’ve been on the forum a bit, I can see both sides of the discussion. There are a lot of great custom sets out there, some with spot progression and some not. As long as the spot colors work well with the base color and the set flows, I don’t think it really matter either way. Should it be considered? I think so. Is it required? Absolutely not. They’re your chips. Pick what you like.
MrCatPants
Full House
There are three states - spot progression; spot repetition; spot regression.
I can get behind spot progression and spot repetition - spot regression just doesn't make sense to me for the reasons others have said, plus you mentally expect the thing worth the most value to be the most extravagant and conversely the low value chips to be more simple.
I can get behind spot progression and spot repetition - spot regression just doesn't make sense to me for the reasons others have said, plus you mentally expect the thing worth the most value to be the most extravagant and conversely the low value chips to be more simple.
I don't know man. I like to question things. I wonder if we, the majority, just believe spot progression is a thing because the majority of the majority got the majority of their poker chip knowledge directly and solely from this site. Like, did a few people like the idea, and they started preaching it as gospel, and as new people came to the site, they didn't even make a decision to agree with it, they just accepted it as institutional knowledge? Dice chips suck, Paulson is king, Spot progression is real and important?
I’d also argue casinos who did use “spot progression” intended to. The reason is mostly likely either cost, industry standardization (whether regulated or not), the pure intent of making sure the denomination as they get higher have more complex spots, or some mix of those reason. If they didn’t intend to for some reason that lead them to spot progression, why do so many $500/T500+ denoms share the same spots? There’s a ton of different spots that are simpler yet still different and more complex while being cheaper at the same time, than the most popular that casino’s could have picked instead.
Oh, but that's exactly what I'm arguing against here. Who says there are only three states?
MrCatPants
Full House
Chip gas, chip liquid, chip solid, chip plasma?
Are you talking about the idea of spot progression or the term? The idea of it I would strongly argue comes from casinos in that the majority (most widely known) of their chips’ spots, progress. The term, well it’s not really even a term is it? The words making it up “spot” “progression” literally mean exactly what the “term” is trying to convey right? So is it a term or just words describing an instance of something?
Poker Zombie
Royal Flush
Just saying that on the felt, spot progression is virtually unnoticeable. Only in a line-up is it ever apparent.
YMMV, but the ES frac is one of the best looking chips in all of history. A limit set of these would be mind blowing.
But those the tout spot progression have little use for this chip. You simply aren't going to progress forward from this chip. Does that make it ugly then?
...and yes, I know some people hate this chip. They are allowed to be wrong.
ekricket
Royal Flush
/end
Just no.
It's both. I think when we use the term "spot progressions" and rarely, if ever, use any other terms to describe how sports work together across demonimations within a set, we're suggesting that progression (less complex to more) is the correct way to do it.
And then yes, I have questions about progression itself
- there are some patterns that nobody can agree whether they're more or less complex (so using progressions as criterion for evlaualting a set is really just making something subjective sound objective)
- is this really something casinos (or manufacturers) have historically relied on, when designing sets.
I think in the old days, fracs and dollars were very simple or solids and the higher denoms had more spots, so ..... spot progression. Everything under the sun is valid.
ekricket
Royal Flush
Casino's primary concern is security, they want chips that are distinguishable on their cameras. Best way to do that is colors and spots. You have lots and lots of $1s, $5s and $25s, less of the higher denoms. More spots = more money. To get a set of chips that is easy to distinguish on camera for the least amount of money, you naturally get spot progression.
Plus it just looks better, duh.
Plus it just looks better, duh.
...and pressure-oiling chips, and storing KEMs upside down with a cut card and dealer button/chips on top, and...
(BTW, I'm not against either of those examples, and I'm definitely trying them out because as a newbie I'm looking to benefit from other's past experience and trials and errors. Until I find out for myself whether these accepted recommendations actually work for my chips/cards/etc. specifically.)
Tournament sets almost always have unified spots.
Cash sets are the one that have a progression of the spots from simple to complex as the values get higher AKA Spot Progression.
Some super sexy cash sets have unified spots as well though, see Huntington Park
So not the term but the connected meaning of the term being right vs other alternatives? I'd argue its simply our environment (day to day life) and casinos that have pushed us to that conclusion and not primarily its use here (though it could reinforce it). Most things in life as they get rarer/more sought after, are more complex and/or pleasing to the eye. By this I mean if you took someone off the street whose never played poker or been to a casino and showed them three lineups, one with strong regression, one with strong progression, and one with no progression, I'd bet the majority (IMO undoubtedly) would say the one with strong progression is correct/more preferred/most common etc - with no prior knowledge/bias.
What progression is varies on here I agree but most singles collectors (and manufacturers in general) base it simply on the number of inserts - which is an objective basis. I do however think in most cases progression/regression are not confused with each other nor with no progression/regression so IMO it's a different topic all to itself.
Now you're getting caught in the weeds imo because you're trying to find intent. My argument is the result in many/most cases is objective spot progression so I leave it at; yes it's something they've factually done, with the intent being a bit of a toss up. EDIT: though again my point above, IMO there's far too many similarities between different casinos high denom spotting to think the choices lacked intent.
ekricket
Royal Flush
Here, let me fix this for youTournament sets almost always have unified spots.
Cash sets are the one that have a progression of the spots from simple to complex as the values get higher AKA Spot Progression.
Some super sexy cash sets have unified spots as well though, see Huntington Park
Tournament chips usually have unified spots, unless they don’t.
Cash chips usually have varied spots among denominations, except those sets that don’t.
Should be crystal clear now
Ben8257
Royal Flush
BTW I would absolutely love to own a set of 20th Century chips, that pastel line up screams Easter Eggs to me and while I have no idea why I love that about poker chips I just do! I would over look the spots on the $25, after all I didn't design it! Lol
Was by no means trying to bash the chips, just the example shown!
@Poker Zombie same with our Foundation chips using the 814 as the fracs. It is basically impossible to progress from there so why try? Do something different "paint outside the lines" for one set, we have several that find the parameters of "normal" all about the variety. For one set you don't have to look forward to the show stoppers to hit the felt, they are already in front of you! Lol
But I also suspect 90 plus % of the forum would rank that line up terrible! I understand why, but again that is only a single piece of a much larger collection. So it may not makes sense to some who only own a couple sets they need to cover their game as opposed to someone looking to add a touch of variety... if that makes any sense!
Also your dream Limit set does exist MJ, its somewhere down south in a "blue fish" pond! Lol
Was by no means trying to bash the chips, just the example shown!
@Poker Zombie same with our Foundation chips using the 814 as the fracs. It is basically impossible to progress from there so why try? Do something different "paint outside the lines" for one set, we have several that find the parameters of "normal" all about the variety. For one set you don't have to look forward to the show stoppers to hit the felt, they are already in front of you! Lol
But I also suspect 90 plus % of the forum would rank that line up terrible! I understand why, but again that is only a single piece of a much larger collection. So it may not makes sense to some who only own a couple sets they need to cover their game as opposed to someone looking to add a touch of variety... if that makes any sense!
Also your dream Limit set does exist MJ, its somewhere down south in a "blue fish" pond! Lol
Mods can we clean this up and move this thread to the politics section please?
I feel like you've been mocking me throughout this thread and I'm really not sure why.
It's a conversation. Most people have some kind of an opinion on the topic.
I've been hoping to hear from some oldsters who could say if people were talking about this stuff 30 years ago.
From the one substantive comment you've made, you seem like you might be more on my side of the debate than the other, but then you laugh at every comment I make. I dunno.
Jesus Ben, calm the F down!.
Okay, I had to do that to complete the joke after I just did it above and then you posted.....
Cheers bud!
Don't let him off the hook Josh. He insulted my babies and I demand satisfaction !
Not mocking you at all lol. I think you just enjoy being controversial and it’s entertaining. Don’t look too in-depth into the laughing emojis. It’s all fun.
HES GONNA GET THE LONGEST PM OF VERBAL ABUSE HES EVER HAD. THIS IS GONNA BE A LIFE LESSON.
Jeep is basically me with more talent and tact. And he's shorter. And has two legs right now.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
