• PCF is an Amazon Associate and an eBay Partner. If you make a purchase through one of our links, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support!

Anybody else think we should stop using the words "spot progression?" (1 Viewer)

Ben8257 said:
Also your dream Limit set does exist MJ, its somewhere down south in a "blue fish" pond! Lol
Click to expand...
yhyw969r20h41.jpg

@UnicornFlash
 
ReallyGoodUsername said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

From a casino operations perspective, having chips be easily identifiable in several different ways makes sense. Color, spots, size, & numbers - 4 fail safes. Solves for color blindness, eyesight, etc, etc.

Aesthetics is probably a factor, but likely behind the above reasons.

As for proper progression - it depends on if your goals are operational or aesthetics. A balance of both is ideal I guess.
 
Last edited:
Irish said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Yeah, it would be utterly stupid for any professional cardroom to not have a house mold, if affordable to them.

I have been a quite heretical part-believer in "spot progression", in practice.
 
Can someone with more skills than myself, post a mock lineup with “spot regression”? ie $100 with solid or single spot then down to a frac with like level 8 edge spots. For science… thanks. :LOL: :laugh:
 
FDLmold said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nailed it
 
Still curious if anyone disputes this ......

aggie said:
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.
Click to expand...

For me personally, spot flow/cohesion/clarity/whatever-other-adjective makes more sense than progression, because progression means different things to different people.

But since the term is the term, I guess I personally prefer to define progression as "intentional movement" (like musical chords) versus "moving from simple to complex" -- otherwise you risk ruling out choices like matching/repeating spots, alternating spots, bold workhorse chip spots, tribute to previous generation chip spots, or whatever-other-intentional-design-decision-you-can-think-of spots. :)
 
joepro said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Poker Zombie said:
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.
Click to expand...
100% agree with this.

Each chip is pretty unique in it's own way. I can see why people wouldn't like progressing spot patterns since everyone has their preference one way or the other, but not having it and seeing it as a determent and it ruining a set just seems ridiculous to me. But again, that's my opinion.

I don't think there's a correct answer here for one side or the other. The correct answer is if the person is happy with the chip set they have, then that's all that matters. Go crazy on a $1 chip.
 
Irish said:
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
Click to expand...
+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.

That said I think we all view "art" differently. I still think the advice of making your workhorse your favorite patterns and building from there makes the most sense and results in the coolest sets. Especially on the felt.
 
upNdown said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Boom.
 

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!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

lovetowel
CPC Design and Spot Progression Help
Replies
17
Views
1K
Camoflaws
Camoflaws
mr11
The Poker Lab Mockup
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
mr11
mr11
danopoker
The set I made with ASM 1/4" spot patterns available for the first time... and want to adjust
Replies
10
Views
620
MeridianFC
MeridianFC
ChippinUp
Edge Spot Progression Question
Replies
11
Views
1K
upNdown
upNdown
kaimat
The Scam That Wasn't (How We Found the Missing Tropicana $100s)
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
maxim_666666
maxim_666666
Back
Top Bottom
Cart

Cart

Total -