Denominational density in board games and poker (1 Viewer)

[OneBrow]

I didn't see another thread discussing this topic.

I'm intrigued by the differences in the spread of denominations used by poker players, as opposed to those typically sought by board games. I have played almost no poker, so I'm especially curious how those who play just poker, or play both, think about these things (if they do at all).

As an example/definition, most poker sets seem to use 3 denominations for every 2 levels of magnitude in value (3|2), so you'll see something like 1/5/25/100. By contrast, when designing their own sets, board gamers will often have 6|2 (1/2/5/10/20/50/100, for a forum example, the 1830-themed chips, and I have seen some call for a 4|2 (1/3/10/30/100). 6|2 and 4|2 spreads call for about the same number of chips for the same sized banks, while 3|2 spreads need about 20% more chips than the other 2.

Some notions on the reasons:

Relationship to the bank: When I get my initial set of chips, my expectation is that, on any transaction, even when I have multiple transactions in a turn, I can toss a larger chip into the bank and get smaller chips out of it as change, and that I can color up between turns. Poker seems to have a culture where, unless you can get change from a neighbor, the chips you have in front of you are the chips you can use, so you need sets that might be a little larger, but are also more flexible denominationally.

Carrying capacity: When I show up to play games, I'm carrying around some moderately heavy bags. If I can make do with 300 chips instead of 350, that another pocket game. By contrast, the chips seem to be the heaviest component that go on the road, when they go on the road at all.

Getting to the top: Part of the cycle of the games I play is to start with money, spend it down, and when you get more, spend it down again. In the early game, you're often doing better if you have a $1 left over than if you have $60. Towards the end of the game, you start bringing in money you can't/shouldn't spend. At that point, claiming a $200 chip that you will not spend is a better victory token than 2 $100 chips. Poker seems to be much more about continual amassing of assets, and the large stacks (or lack thereof) show this progress.

Number of ways to divide chips: In some games I play, I might need to track separately my cash and cash for 3-4 companies I control. In a 6-player game, that's a lot of entities to keep fed. More denominations create smaller stacks, and also smaller banks. 50 1s and 25 2s can supply a many more treasuries than 75 1s.

None of these comments should be interpreted as applying universally. Any corrections to errors I have made are welcome.

 

[allforcharity]

This why customizable chips are a great option - have whatever you need in whatever quantity you need made to spec for you. I am of a mind that a chipset designed for board games should be reserved for board games, just like I think cash and tourney sets should be kept separate, for security reasons.

 

[Mr Winberg]

We like tall stacks

 

[CrazyEddie]

There are definitely different considerations between poker and board games that affect the breakdowns you'd want to have; I think you've done a great job pointing some of them out. Even different board games may have different needs because of their different dynamics.

That said, pretty much any breakdown can be made to work for any game - including poker! There's a lot of threads here on PCF devoted to breakdowns, and the posters have done a great job of identifying desirable characteristics for sets given different constraints and different purposes (cash vs. tourneys, different stakes, etc), but as one poster put it you can play poker with matchsticks if necessary. Same for board games - as long as your bank is large enough, you can get by with any breakdown... some will be nicer to play with than others due to change-making considerations, but many will play about as well as any other.

I have one set for board games and some other sets for poker. For my board game set I use 1/5/10/50/100, which from one perspective is a very inefficient breakdown - you could make a much larger bank for the same amount of chips by using a wider spread rather than having the small x2 steps between 5/10 and 50/100. But I find this to be a very convenient breakdown for the particular games I have in mind, like Power Grid and Acquire. In those games you're frequently either paying or being paid amounts that are more-or-less evenly distributed across a wide range, including odd amounts. I like this breakdown for that purpose because it deals in digit places: for example, 73 is seven tens and three ones, 244 is two hundreds, four tens, and four ones. Adding in fives and fifties makes getting certain values a lot more convenient in terms of counting chips, but with minimal cognitive overhead: for example, 70 is a fifty and two tens, or two fifties and three tens back in change.

Poker set breakdowns are driven by considerations of what chips are most frequently used for making bets? In no-limit games, players are free to bet any amount, rather than the bet sizes being dictated by the game mechanics, and a high degree of precision is not generally necessary. If an ideal bet in some circumstance were 45, then 40 or 50 might be just about as good, and so a player might be inclined to bet with a convenient number of conveniently-sized chips (two twenties, or four tens, or five tens, or two twenty-fives, or a fifty, depending on what denominations they had in front of them) rather than trying to size their bet precisely and get change. Bet sizes naturally escalate by a factor of around two to five each betting round, so players will naturally tend to bet with a few small chips, then a few medium size chips, then a few large chips over the course of a hand - and so the chip breakdowns are likewise sized in factors of four and five between each denomination. That's a feature particular to poker (NL poker, specifically) and not likely to be seen in typical board games.

The number of chips you need of each denomination per player for some board games is driven by "how many do you need in order to perform a typical transaction without making change" and might be something like "enough of each denomination to equal the next higher denomination, plus a little extra" i.e. five ones per player to make a five, four fives per player to make a twenty, five twenties per player to make a hundred, plus a little extra. Whereas in poker it's driven by "how many do you need to make enough typical bets without running out of them before you win a pot and get some back?"

These are just a few more ideas about how you might go about breaking down a set for whatever purpose you have in mind. Good topic! Glad you posted it.