STOP STIFLING HIS CREATIVITY JOHNNNNNNNot 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.
...also boat chips were a NAGB, fact.
STOP STIFLING HIS CREATIVITY JOHNNNNNNNot 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.
GuiltyI think you just enjoy being controversial
I don't know man. I like to question things.
Urban legend says he has three.And has two legs right now.
@CoyoteUrban legend says he has three.
Or in the case of 1/2 and quarter pie Spot Two SpiritSpot Omission
Spot Saturation
Spot randomization
Also your dream Limit set does exist MJ, its somewhere down south in a "blue fish" pond! Lol
I think this is probably the most likely explanation. I would also add the spots are as much for quick and easy identification for the dealers (and players) as aesthetic value.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.
I 'm amazed at your knowledge of Greek slang, according to which the 'third leg' is the penis
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.
Hmmmmm.....Tommy might disagree.STOP STIFLING HIS CREATIVITY JOHNNNNNN
...also boat chips were a NAGB, fact.
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.
Spot progression makes little sense to me for chips to sit in a case.
Boo!> We should have a phrase that means "how the spots work together within the set," or something like that.
Agreed. How 'bout we call that "spot progression"?
There are three states - spot progression; spot repetition; spot regression.
"Spot Harmony" anybody?> We should have a phrase that means "how the spots work together within the set," or something like that.
Agreed. How 'bout we call that "spot progression"?
Just because the casinos never intended for spot progression to be a thing doesn't mean it's not a thing.
I find it interesting that, for as much as we squabble over edge spot progression, practically every legendary set either lacks it completely or fails miserably at it.
So this to me sounds like "different spots" as opposed to "spot progression". I am onboard with different spots. I am onboard with same spots throughout the set. Where I take difference is in the concept that the smallest denom should be "basic" and the biggest chips, the ones that may not even see play, are the fanciest.This is the reason for "spot progression," the origin is for security purposes at the cameras, table, and cage. The term likely came from chip nerds. I agree that spot progression is overrated when it comes to home games (or casino tournament/ ncv chips), but the purpose was security from a long time ago. House molds are also a security feature.
100% agree with this.So this to me sounds like "different spots" as opposed to "spot progression". I am onboard with different spots. I am onboard with same spots throughout the set. Where I take difference is in the concept that the smallest denom should be "basic" and the biggest chips, the ones that may not even see play, are the fanciest.
Casinos don't do it. Home games shouldn't do it. But those that think the whole set should be looked at, simultaneously think it's an important thing. When designing a set you see all the chips laid out, so it's easy to imagine that they are all in play at the same time. However, very few sets see every denomination on the table at the same time.
Still curious if anyone disputes this ......
+1. Imo when taken to the extreme and just following the "rule" of increasing complexity of similar patterns it can feel very robotic and the set ends up having little impact.I would. You don't have to do something like 214-314-414-614 to have nice spot progression, you can get creative with it. Each of these sets has very good (yet subtle) spot progression and IMHO are some of the best chip sets out there.
View attachment 828565
View attachment 828566
View attachment 828571
View attachment 828572
View attachment 828574
View attachment 828573
I'd argue that there is a spot progression with the Lakeshores, it's just very subtle. It's simple, start with solids on the frac, maintain no spots for fracs, progress to the same spot pattern for whole denoms.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.
View attachment 828293
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.