Can a 600 set work well for 0.25/0.25 and 0.25/50 stakes? (1 Viewer)

Yeah I can say from playing in an....."accelerated".... .50/$1 where almost all the bets preflop vary from $6 to $25 the fracs become almost pointless except for the blinds. It also makes the game less fun and more about max profit, which if your regulars are good with thats okay I guess, but if you have a mixed group its a bit uncomfortable since every 3rd hand someone's jamming into the pot for their stack it's like you're playing $2/$5 at that point. So I guess it mostly depends on your players and game how many fracs youd really need. But again, for the pure point of flexibility having more is good
 
FordPickup92 said:
Yeah I can say from playing in an....."accelerated".... .50/$1 where almost all the bets preflop vary from $6 to $25 the fracs become almost pointless except for the blinds. It also makes the game less fun and more about max profit, which if your regulars are good with thats okay I guess, but if you have a mixed group its a bit uncomfortable since every 3rd hand someone's jamming into the pot for their stack it's like you're playing $2/$5 at that point. So I guess it mostly depends on your players and game how many fracs youd really need. But again, for the pure point of flexibility having more is good
Click to expand...


Well thats a whole other thread... LOL

I've had many a hairy eyeball thrown my way when I say POT ! to an already potted hand. :sneaky:
 
MatB said:
Well thats a whole other thread... LOL

I've had many a hairy eyeball thrown my way when I say POT ! to an already potted hand. :sneaky:
Click to expand...
tenor (1) (1).2.gif
 
JeepologyOffroad said:
I wish my game played like yours Phil haha. Most buy in for 200bb starting.

I still do agree and like more chips tho in cash game so I compensate with fracs and 1s. For my .50/.50 I usually have:

.50 - 200x
1 - 300x
5 - 200 (although I have a couple sets with 4-500x if I know it’s going to be a bigger game)
20/25 - 80x
100 - 20x

Too many 1s and fracs? Yeah maybe, but moar chips moar fun
Click to expand...

You know where to find us!
 
MatB said:
Both scenarios the quarters are out of the mix quickly and $5 are in play. This is pre flop. Post flop is $1s, $5s , $20s

Lets GOOOOOOOO !!

Im not even playing cards and the need to raise is strong right now.:ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

Maybe to me it has more to do with the buy-ins than the actual blinds.

For 25 or 50 buy ins, the entire stack could be represented by just 5 or 10 chips using fives, that seems way too low. A game with a buy in of 25 could really function without fives at all. So obviously some ones are in play. My butter zone is 50-60 chips per player for no limit. (Meaning 600 should work in some fashion for a table of 10). Too many fives for this size buy-in seems too small. So I tend to issue starting stacks with 30-40 singles per player until I exhaust the singles. Moving 3 barrels into the pot to go all in seems like the right about to me, but YMMV.

Buy-ins of 100 or more may make sense to be heavier in fives such as in @detroitdad 's game where the alternative would be 100 singles per player if avoiding fives entirely. Awesome for fixed limit, but I can get that extreme would be a hindrance in no limit. Hence why this question always comes down to "how the game plays."

So my suggest breakdown of 100/300/160/40 provide 30 singles per player on average once they are all out of the bank, which seems about right to me for the stakes @Cole Lomas describes.

(By the way @Cole Lomas , welcome to PCF, with the reduction in live games, we have time to turn anything into 3 pages of responses ;), did we scare you yet?)
 
Another option is to have plaques for upper denoms, be it $20, $50, $100, whatever, then go with a breakdown like

25¢ x 120
$1 x 240
$5 x 240

=$1,470 which would cover the lower game completely and also cover a solid majority of the initial buy-ins for the bigger game.
 
I love reading these threads; I must have read a dozen of them when I was just getting started, trying to figure out how many chips I'd need.

My take-aways were:
  • Everyone has different opinions
  • Nearly anything can be made to work
  • Everything depends on your players' preferences and your game's playstyle
Some like a lot of chips on the table, some don't. Some like a lot of the lowest denom, some don't. Some get a lot of use out of the low denom + low workhorse, some jump straight to the low workhorse + high workhorse. Some hate making change, some aren't bothered at all. Some have tons of rebuys and need a huge bank, some nurse a rebuy or two per player all night long.

I think it's great you're getting feedback on your proposed breakdown, but I wouldn't stress too much over it. Consider everyone's advice, then go with what feels right to you. If you're not sure, buy some cheap chips and play with those for a few games just to see for yourself how different breakdowns work in your game. Then when you buy your 600 expensive chips (or 400, or 1200) you won't regret your purchase.

Personally, I decided that for my small game, I'll be fine with 300-400 chips in three to five denominations. A set that small faces certain limitations, but I was happy with the trade-offs. For one thing, sets like that match what can be built out of the types of vintage chips I'm collecting. For another, having smaller sets means I can afford to have more of them! I'm up to five different sets that I gotta have, and another three behind that I wanna have.

Good luck with making your decision, and have fun with whatever you decide!
 
Used to run a .25/.25 .25/.50 game for years and went heavy on quarters because we played a lot of crazy quarter gambling games after we finished up with the NHLE/O8 portion of the night. I now own ... too many quarters.

Keeping buy-ins in mind is a good way to look at things sometimes when you're dealing with stakes this low. So is your group's play style. In our game it was a $40 buy-in and I doubt we ever had more than $800 on the table at any point at those stakes. And we were always hunting for more $1s.

100/200/200/100 or 100/200/200/80/20 is the perfect breakdown for live, aggressive action games. We had more of a relaxed game back then, so something like 160/300/140 worked better for us.

In the games we've played regardless of stakes, 1 person ends up with the majority of .25 chips anyways. There's hardly ever a point to dish out more than a barrel per player, and even then it's often too much.
 
Venturalvn said:
In the games we've played regardless of stakes, 1 person ends up with the majority of .25 chips anyways. There's hardly ever a point to dish out more than a barrel per player, and even then it's often too much.
Click to expand...

At the risk of disclosing strategy, this is a subtle tell to identify which players are being the most aggressive in small pots.
 
BGinGA said:
I also recommend 600-chip cash sets with a breakdown of 100/200/200/100 (or 80/20 high denoms), along with the practice of giving a barrel of quarters to the first five buy-ins (balanced starting stacks in cash games and tournies are pointless).

That said, all of my cash sets contain 200 quarters. :cool Moar chips, bay-bee!
Click to expand...

FYP
 
JRReynolds6181 said:
As a general rule more chips is always better. Giant stacks are fun.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that pcfers mentality. Do you have the guy who takes 9 min to count $30 bet with ones from a sloppy stack not in 20 stacks but in 17? I rather play poker and see 6 $5 chips. Not 20 25¢ and 25 $1s. That's what you are saying, let's count every single hand tons of low denoms. Brie gets a pass because she's a mothed faced lamp. The rest of you na just wrong ;)
 
JustinInMN said:
Maybe to me it has more to do with the buy-ins than the actual blinds.

For 25 or 50 buy ins, the entire stack could be represented by just 5 or 10 chips using fives, that seems way too low. A game with a buy in of 25 could really function without fives at all. So obviously some ones are in play. My butter zone is 50-60 chips per player for no limit. (Meaning 600 should work in some fashion for a table of 10). Too many fives for this size buy-in seems too small. So I tend to issue starting stacks with 30-40 singles per player until I exhaust the singles. Moving 3 barrels into the pot to go all in seems like the right about to me, but YMMV.

Buy-ins of 100 or more may make sense to be heavier in fives such as in @detroitdad 's game where the alternative would be 100 singles per player if avoiding fives entirely. Awesome for fixed limit, but I can get that extreme would be a hindrance in no limit. Hence why this question always comes down to "how the game plays."

So my suggest breakdown of 100/300/160/40 provide 30 singles per player on average once they are all out of the bank, which seems about right to me for the stakes @Cole Lomas describes.

(By the way @Cole Lomas , welcome to PCF, with the reduction in live games, we have time to turn anything into 3 pages of responses ;), did we scare you yet?)
Click to expand...
I was thinking all of that and more. @Cole Lomas you need to do some serious analysis of your game, if you want to cover it with 600 chips
 
Jambine said:
I was thinking all of that and more. @Cole Lomas you need to do some serious analysis of your game, if you want to cover it with 600 chips
Click to expand...

I think the original answer to the question is simple. Can you do the two stakes he mentioned on 600 chips? Of course yes.

It's just a question of how to divide them up. For the two specific games he mentioned. I favor a singles heavy breakdown, and spending half the chips on fives and up just seems like way too much. If we get into "future-proofing" and accommodating a wider stake of games, then a more fives-heavy breakdown is in order.

Personally, I think especially for hosts new to the forum, "future-proofing" is overrated. Just get what you need to get started on the cheap and keep reading the forum for a while before deciding on what you *really* want to invest. Your tastes will likely change in two years time anyway, why not figure that out first before planning every eventuality?

toynoob said:
Do you have the guy who takes 9 min to count $30 bet with ones from a sloppy stack not in 20 stacks but in 17? I rather play poker and see 6 $5 chips. Not 20 25¢ and 25 $1s.
Click to expand...

There has to be a middle ground between just five bucks per stack in singles and quarters or making the entire stack quarters. (Never have to make change in the second case ;), but no one wants to move two racks of quarters into a pot either.) Personally, I have settled on the idea that 40-60 chips per player in NL/PL is the "butter zone" for giving players enough chips to move around without being too cumbersome to count. You can surely get by on less, but that does mean breaking big chips rather frequently on early streets.
 
JRReynolds6181 said:
But how do I intimidate my opponents with little stacks? I need giant towers that make me look tough.
Click to expand...
Live at the bike is a broadcasting stream made for casual players who have no clue the value of any of those chips. Those are professional players who can count them in seconds and not hold up a home game. There is no right answer obviously, I'm just trying to prove a point tons of chips slows games down. If you want to make mountains win more don't buy more :sneaky:
 
JustinInMN said:
I think the original answer to the question is simple. Can you do the two stakes he mentioned on 600 chips? Of course yes.

It's just a question of how to divide them up. For the two specific games he mentioned. I favor a singles heavy breakdown, and spending half the chips on fives and up just seems like way too much. If we get into "future-proofing" and accommodating a wider stake of games, then a more fives-heavy breakdown is in order.

Personally, I think especially for hosts new to the forum, "future-proofing" is overrated. Just get what you need to get started on the cheap and keep reading the forum for a while before deciding on what you *really* want to invest. Your tastes will likely change in two years time anyway, why not figure that out first before planning every eventuality?



There has to be a middle ground between just five bucks per stack in singles and quarters or making the entire stack quarters. (Never have to make change in the second case ;), but no one wants to move two racks of quarters into a pot either.) Personally, I have settled on the idea that 40-60 chips per player in NL/PL is the "butter zone" for giving players enough chips to move around without being too cumbersome to count. You can surely get by on less, but that does mean breaking big chips rather frequently on early streets.
Click to expand...
I'm completely agree, my personal mixed set is
100-25¢
260-1s
100-5s
40-20s
 

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

J
First Cash Set (Aria's)
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Kage
Kage
G
Advice on a new cash chipset
Replies
12
Views
753
Quickdog
Q
FullSet
Set advice
Replies
29
Views
1K
tdawgg18
tdawgg18
FS21
Advice on the Quantity for Custom Set
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
xdukeluvax
X
T
First cash set
Replies
7
Views
385
Tonysquander
Tonysquander
Back
Top Bottom