Do you prefer edge spot progression or not? (1 Viewer)

[TRS4991]

I am working on putting together some artwork for a custom Cards Mold set and I’m constantly going back and forth between using the same edge spots for all denoms, or going with a spot progression, or going just completely random based on chips that I like. It seems that each day I prefer one over the other and can’t seem to make up my mind.

After looking at various casino chips, it seems hardly any of them have a well thought out progression and that it’s more random than anything. And now I feel like I’m overanalyzing the whole thing and 99% of the players in my game aren’t going to notice either way.

Any feedback/examples of your own work would be much appreciated.

Cheers,
Tyler

 

[detroitdad]

Yes

 

[JoeBGo]

Cash set? Absolutely.
Tournament set? No.

 

[JeepologyOffroad]

Cash set? Absolutely.
Tournament set? No.

This.

 

[grantc54]

Spot progression is very subjective, ultimately you need to go with something that feels right for you.

I try to do some sort of progressions, usually requiring the next chip to be more complex, that could mean more spot colours, number of apot groupings, number of spots in each grouping


There are some exceptions for me. I am ok with a more complex frac, I also follow the @Racer96 school of having a boring 500 in a tournament set.

Again, it comes down more to a subjective feeling as to what goes well together.

 

[TRS4991]

This.

What makes you say that?

 

[swana]

Go with what you like and what you feel makes a cohesive set.

As an aside, I also have different feelings about spot progression depending on the day... maybe that is the reason across my 3 custom sets 1 has a very specific progression, 1 is pretty random, 1 pretty much all the same..?

 

[TRS4991]

Spot progression is very subjective, ultimately you need to go with something that feels right for you.

I try to do some sort of progressions, usually requiring the next chip to be more complex, that could mean more spot colours, number of apot groupings, number of spots in each grouping


There are some exceptions for me. I am ok with a more complex frac, I also follow the @Racer96 school of having a boring 500 in a tournament set.

Again, it comes down more to a subjective feeling as to what goes well together.

Yeah I totally agree. The only issue I have with that at the moment is that the better looking chips with more spots/colors end up being the high denoms and the $20/$100 chip are hardly going to be seeing the felt in my game $0.25/0.50 game. So it’ll mostly be fracs, $1s and $5s, which happen to be the most basic chips

 

[swana]

Yeah I totally agree. The only issue I have with that at the moment is that the better looking chips with more spots/colors end up being the high denoms and the $20/$100 chip are hardly going to be seeing the felt in my game $0.25/0.50 game. So it’ll mostly be fracs, $1s and $5s, which happen to be the most basic chips

This is a big draw back of being very rigid adhering to a spot progression.

 

[Josh Kifer]

Yes. Always. I will firmly argue with anyone who says it doesn't matter.

 

[Saoliver]

Yes. Always. I will firmly argue with anyone who says it doesn't matter.

It matters for cash sets. Same spots in tourney sets can be cool. Aurora Star tourney set for example. If you disagree, then sell it back to me. Hahahahaha

I have spoken.

 

[Josh Kifer]

It matters for cash sets. Same spots in tourney sets can be cool. Aurora Star tourney set for example. If you disagree, then sell it back to me. Hahahahaha

I have spoken.

How's @CraigT78 s new set coming along there bud?

 

[TRS4991]

This is a big draw back of being very rigid adhering to a spot progression.

Absolutely it is a huge draw back. In a tournament I wouldn’t mind as much cause as the blinds go up, those chips will eventually make it into play. But that’s much different with cash

 

[Thomacetti]

This.

I can go both ways...

Love my all solid cash sets & Key West set...love my AST set too.
Love my spot progression sets too (PCA, HSI, ...)

Both can have merit & awsome end results...

Solids & same spots focus more on artwork/hotstamp & base colors...progression gives way to confetti-bombs
What's not too like

 

[JeepologyOffroad]

How's @CraigT78 s new set coming along there bud?

 

[Josh Kifer]

You come at me, I deal with the issue. You know how I roll......

 

[Thomacetti]

Yeah I totally agree. The only issue I have with that at the moment is that the better looking chips with more spots/colors end up being the high denoms and the $20/$100 chip are hardly going to be seeing the felt in my game $0.25/0.50 game. So it’ll mostly be fracs, $1s and $5s, which happen to be the most basic chips

This is a big draw back of being very rigid adhering to a spot progression.

That's why the chipes xberts created the T5 tourney breakdown...

 

[grantc54]

Yeah I totally agree. The only issue I have with that at the moment is that the better looking chips with more spots/colors end up being the high denoms and the $20/$100 chip are hardly going to be seeing the felt in my game $0.25/0.50 game. So it’ll mostly be fracs, $1s and $5s, which happen to be the most basic chips

There is nothing saying you have to start at a low spot progression, just look at IG with 618 $1 and bearclaw $5.

 

[shorticus]

I do like spot progression, but I love extravagant quarters in a set. So I guess it’s yes and no for me.

 

[Mandos]

After looking at various casino chips, it seems hardly any of them have a well thought out progression and that it’s more random than anything.

I tried this approach at first, but the longer i hang out on PCF the less I expect to find anything logical/well thought out in a given casino lineup and it's a pleasant surprise when that assumption is proven wrong.

And now I feel like I’m overanalyzing the whole thing and 99% of the players in my game aren’t going to notice either way.

100% true. But that's also why we're all here so at least you're not the only one.

 

[natumes]

I think spot progression is something PCF made up. I would imagine the only thing casinos are concerned with is being able to distinguish cash chips easily on camera.

Personally I think any fractional chip should have a basic spot or no spot, but after that get whatever you like. I do think the all matching spot pattern can look great as well.

 

[AWenger]

After looking at various casino chips, it seems hardly any of them have a well thought out progression and that it’s more random than anything.

Keep in mind that for casinos that have table games (blackjack, craps, etc.) they have a need to tell different chip denominations apart, including on security camera footage, to catch & help prevent possible table game cheaters (for example, cheaters may try to hide or slip in different chip denoms in a stack after a roll or after a card is dealt). So that's one reason, the spot patterns on those casino chips will likely be entirely different on different denoms. Casinos that are poker-only or card rooms only, maybe not so much. And for poker tournament sets at casinos, many of those will have the same spot pattern on different denoms.

 

[AWenger]

I think spot progression is something PCF made up.

Allow me to present to you the California Bell Club chip lineup, from a casino (not sure -- maybe card room only?) that opened in 1974: http://chipguide.themogh.org/cg_chip2.php?id=CABECB&v=3537925132

They had chips from $0.25 through $100, with 4 jumps in spot progressions - counting going from a solid color to spots as a first jump. So it was a thing that was done by a casino in 1974. One of my favorite sets I own.

[Edit - Chipguide lists it as: "Type: Card Room"]

 

[Coyote]

Not utterly necessary; again the perception / notion of "progression" can be pretty subjective.
Many sets who claim "progression" are absurd, in my book.

In my first cash set, I went with standard spots for the middle denominations, having different ones only for the bottom and the top value chip.
In my second cash set, I followed a mild / discreet progression, as I understand it.
In my re-labelled cash set, I only have a slightly "inferior" spot pattern for the fracs, while all other chips have the same pattern.
In my tourney custom set, I didn't have any progression at all.

 

[TRS4991]

Not utterly necessary; again the perception / notion of "progression" can be pretty subjective.
Many sets who claim "progression" are absurd, in my book.

In my first cash set, I went with standard spots for the middle denominations, having different ones only for the bottom and the top value chip.
In my second cash set, I followed a mild / discreet progression, as I understand it.
In my re-labelled cash set, I only have a slightly "inferior" spot pattern for the fracs, while all other chips have the same pattern.
In my tourney custom set, I didn't have any progression at all.

View attachment 940492

I really like the look of that type of progression, very simple, minimal and not over the top needing the next denomination to get more and more complex. I think doing something simpler on the lowest frac and maybe something a bit more complex on the highest denom might be the sweet spot between a little bit of progression but not over complicating it

 

[AlbinoDragon]

Yeah I totally agree. The only issue I have with that at the moment is that the better looking chips with more spots/colors end up being the high denoms and the $20/$100 chip are hardly going to be seeing the felt in my game $0.25/0.50 game. So it’ll mostly be fracs, $1s and $5s, which happen to be the most basic chips

This is why I used the "Gaussian" spot progression on my Devil's Nest tribute set and wish I had done the same from the very beginning.

1) know the stakes of the game(s) you play
2) figure out your workhorse chip based on (1)
3) make it the most visually interesting chip WRT spot complexity.
4) make spots on either side of that denomination less complex.

The set:

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/a-d-s-devils-nest-cpc-customs.78031/

Think of a bell curve with the most interesting spots being the ones you will use the most.

 

[jrs146]

I actually prefer all solid tournament chips. For cash chips, I do like the spots to progress, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have to get overly complicated As long as there is some differentiation between the spots, that's enough for me.

 

[TRS4991]

This is why I used the "Gaussian" spot progression on my Devil's Nest tribute set and wish I had done the same from the very beginning.

1) know the stakes of the game(s) you play
2) figure out your workhorse chip based on (1)
3) make it the most visually interesting chip WRT spot complexity.
4) make spots on either side of that denomination less complex.

The set:

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/a-d-s-devils-nest-cpc-customs.78031/

Think of a bell curve with the most interesting spots being the ones you will use the most.

Love that idea as well building the set around the $1 or $5 chip. Thanks for the input!

 

[warma]

There are lovely cash (and vintage casino/card room) sets with the same spot pattern, with random patterns, and progressive patterns. There are a ton of approaches as evidenced above.

I would do what you think looks great, given the colors and budget.

I would just think before using a either highly regressive pattern (L11 frac -> L1 $100) due to the plainness and security of the higher value chips or confused sets that randomly bounce a limited number of spots across a 6-chip set.

My two CPC sets are same spot pattern. I was debating a progressive pattern for my third, but switched to a single pattern as it is a more vintage feel.

 

[raynmanas]

my take: i can't manage to host enough non-tournament games, and i want to see different spot patterns, so i did edge progression on my tournament set in addition to my cash set. but i think my tournament progression still makes consistent sense (besides maybe the T25, but i NEEDED to include a 3TRIM+ for reasons beyond this discussion):

but in a vaccuum, i do understand the preference for a totally consistent spot pattern in a tournament set.

cash spots can be progressive or all over the place, but should all be different IMO.