CPC tournament spot progession (1 Viewer)

[nostan]

Hi PCF,

The original plan was a 3D14-uniform CPC tournament set.

But meanwhile I've more and more been thinking about to make the set with varying spots instead. More value in it, since I maybe wont order twice from CPC.

Could we find any reasonable spot progression in these lineups? Do you find it logical, or do you find something that must be changed? Two examples, maybe one more better than the other? Please give me your thoughts

 

[GreekRedEye]

There are others with more informed opinions than my own. That said, I like both! If I had to choose one, I would go with the second, but really, it's a coin flip.

I applaud your consideration of spot progression. Lots of people prefer uniform spots or solids on tourney chips. Problem is, you tend to see more denoms in tournament play than you do in a cash game. Having a way, especially for those who struggle to differentiate colors, to better tell them apart is a nice courtesy you can provide your guests.

 

[rebels9999]

Personally, I like the 2nd one better. That is strictly because I personally don’t like 4A18. Others will tar and feather me for that opinion and that is why custom chips are so awesome. They are your chips, not mine so go with what YOU like best. Just make sure if you don’t already you order the color samples before you place an order.

I just did a CPC tourney set (did a CPC cash set in 2021) and I did the same spot pattern on each. My cash set has spot progression.

One thing you may want to consider is inlay shapes. For me, that is a better way to spend $ than on more expensive spots. Once I started playing with inlay shapes my spot choices got easier. Your mileage may vary though.

Both look very good to me though.

 

[Rhodeman77]

From a cost perspective the second lineup will save you money. The 100 being level 3 instead of level 7 can be a big cost savings. Sure the 500 is now level 7 but you will order far less of them.

I went with very simple spots on my tournament set for a couple of reasons. 1, Cost, I only use the set a few times per year, if that. Spending a lot on it didn’t make much sense to me.
2. Casinos usually use solids (to save costs) and because the chips have no cash value security isn’t as important.

That said, if you like complex spots, get complete spots!!

My simple spot set for reference.

 

[Kaiser444]

I prefer the 2nd set. Has a bit more flair / uniqueness to it.

 

[BGinGA]

For five denominations, consider one of these spot progressions (lots of room for customization and configurations):

1-2-3-4-6
2-3-4-6-8
3-4-6-8-9
3-4-6-8-12
3-4-6-9-12

(For reference, the OP options are 2-4-6-8-12 and 2-4-6-8-16).

 

[GreekRedEye]

From a cost perspective the second lineup will save you money. The 100 being level 3 instead of level 7 can be a big cost savings. Sure the 500 is now level 7 but you will order far less of them.

I went with very simple spots on my tournament set for a couple of reasons. 1, Cost, I only use the set a few times per year, if that. Spending a lot on it didn’t make much sense to me.
2. Casinos usually use solids (to save costs) and because the chips have no cash value security isn’t as important.

That said, if you like complex spots, get complete spots!!

My simple spot set for reference.

View attachment 1245600

I love the colors and spot progression on this. And the breakdown is perfect. 2 tables at 12/12/3/7 or 3 tables at 8/8/4/7 with plenty for color ups and rebuys! I'm bookmarking your set for a visual reference of an ideal T25 chipset.

 

[krafticus]

I think there are a few factors when it comes to spot progression; however, in the end, they are YOUR chips, and get what makes you the happiest.

1) Thicker -> Thinner
2) Few -> Many
3) Increasing complexity
3) Few Thicker -> Many Thinner.

Some chips start out with a thicker spot or simple spot pattern, and start to narrow them down as the denominations increase. Some chips stay with a set spot size, but add complexity. Some just go with a more simple pattern to a more complex pattern, not following the 2 previous examples.

Here is what I mean:

This one starts with the thicker spots, and works its way to a thinner (and more complex spot pattern)

This one uses the same relative spot size, but increases in complexity

This is just something I like

 

[GetUrShineBox]

The longer I'm in this hobby the more I like the same spot patterns for tournament chips.
If I were to do spot progression on a tournament lineup I would suggest sticking with at lest the same spot widths like Krafticus's second lineup.
Just my two cents, but there is no wrong or right, do what you like!

Good Luck!

 

[ChipEnvy]

I like your 2nd set (but sub the first set 500 in there, it flows better with the 2nd set). However…

I am finding that all of my favorite tournament sets have the same edge spots.

No need to get super crazy with it either, some of the L3 and L4 spots are complex enough to give the set that pop we are all looking for and it saves money staying away from the more complex spot patterns that can get very expensive.