Edge spot progression "rules"? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TwoHomie
- Start date
jclee706
High Hand
I really like the looks of these
No rules. However you want it. This is what I chose
Jeevansluck
Royal Flush
Love that inlay!
MeridianFC
Flush
Wowza! Relables?
bergs
Royal Flush
Maverick: “I liked the Trimoons on my frac, there was no danger, I only created 2 racks”
Viper: “The rules of edgespot progression are for your chip’s safety and that of your set. They are not flexible, nor am I. Either obey them or you are history. Is that clear?”
Viper: “The rules of edgespot progression are for your chip’s safety and that of your set. They are not flexible, nor am I. Either obey them or you are history. Is that clear?”
Jeevansluck
Royal Flush
Long live the ES frac!
Lol spot progression….
Lol spot progression….
Ben8257
Royal Flush
I stared at these ceramics for two minutes trying to figure out what the edge spots were saying. But they started giving me a headache so I gave up and drank your beer.
As was already said... there are no "rules" per se.
Personally I try to adhere to some simple "guidelines":
- I won't duplicate a spot pattern in the same set. (I like variety)
- I won't have spot colors matching the base/spot colors of other chips they'll share the same table with. (helps avoid dirty stacks)
- I'll have simpler spots on lower denoms and more complex spots on higher denoms. (can help with cost assuming one needs more low denom chips)
GENERALLY, I follow these, but I've broken every one of them at one point or another.
ekricket
Royal Flush
I think sometimes your spot progression is simply what you can procure. It’s a bit easier now for some niches, but for the most part you have to make due for years with something until your ideal chip spot shows up in the quantity you need and at a time you can afford it and you are first to jump on it.
Okay. So if I read the above correctly, the one guideline you adhere to is there are no guidelines. Did I nail it?
There are guidelines. They are just loose. As long as you can easily differentiate the chips in play (without looking at the inlay) is what ultimately matters.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This, in all seriousness.
Avoiding dirty stacks and avoiding confusion between denoms that must be on the table concurrently is the key.
Agree. This is the point.
The word “progression” seems to be the sticking point for some (not for me). So maybe we should call these spot schemes, or spot plans, or something else so the triggered commentators can get over it ;^)
An experienced player should be able to glance at some chips and know roughly what they are worth, without having to think too much about it.
So:
A smart spot scheme helps make chips readily identifiable—whether they are in a player’s stack, pushed forward as a bet, or mixed together in a messy pot.
A smart spot scheme might move from simple to complex, or small to large, or vice-versa. These are likely to avoid duplicating colors, spot sizes and patterns, among each other and/or the base colors, so that each denom is distinct.
By contrast a bad spot scheme causes confusion, typically through duplication of patterns, sizes and/or colors. It causes players to confuse denoms, miss high-value chips in a dirty stack, and make other unnecessary errors that cause disputes or just slow play down.
Talrem
Two Pair
I’d have to agree with this statement. The word ‘progression’ seems to be interpreted differently by many. I have always understood it to mean that as you progress from the lower to higher denoms, the spot design should also progress, e.g. change color, number, shape, and intricacy. For instance, fracs may have no, or one, spot (size may vary). Dollars may have 1-2 spots of different color/size than fracs. Snappers may have same number of spots as the dollars but with color & shape variations. Fives may have 3 spots with variations, and 25s with 3-4 spot variations, and so on and so on.
Obviously this isn’t the case as seen with many casino designs out there - this is just how I initially interpreted it once upon a time.
Whether or not you agree or disagree, I do believe that spot count (increasing or decreasing) should be a factor in “spot progression.”
All good points.
I guess the question is “what constitutes a progression”? The word implies some sort of methodical sequence. It doesn’t say that it needs to go up (few spots to more spots) or down, or simple to complex. Just progress in some logical way.
For example, the width of spots could be part of the progression, not just the number or complexity.
I guess objections come in when the sequence seems random. Say a set that had trimoon fracs, then 418 $1s, then a bearclaw $5, then 3D18 $25s, then a solid $100. It just feels arbitrary. It’s not intuitively obvious whether a given chip in the lineup should be worth more or less based just on the spots.
But this can easily happen when one is trying to assemble a set from chips that are scarce. I’ve been slowly assembling a cash set of spotted THCs, wanting only mint or near-mint chips. It’s challenging enough to get enough of each denom in quantity, while also trying to have the spots progress in some logical way that also fits the color scheme.
I guess the question is “what constitutes a progression”? The word implies some sort of methodical sequence. It doesn’t say that it needs to go up (few spots to more spots) or down, or simple to complex. Just progress in some logical way.
For example, the width of spots could be part of the progression, not just the number or complexity.
I guess objections come in when the sequence seems random. Say a set that had trimoon fracs, then 418 $1s, then a bearclaw $5, then 3D18 $25s, then a solid $100. It just feels arbitrary. It’s not intuitively obvious whether a given chip in the lineup should be worth more or less based just on the spots.
But this can easily happen when one is trying to assemble a set from chips that are scarce. I’ve been slowly assembling a cash set of spotted THCs, wanting only mint or near-mint chips. It’s challenging enough to get enough of each denom in quantity, while also trying to have the spots progress in some logical way that also fits the color scheme.
This is true. And especially difficult since the casinos themselves don't really adhere to any obviously "progressive" scheme. Most of them don't hire a designer to do anything outside of their inlay (and even then the results are often suspect).
Rakrul
Straight
I disagree. If the dealer accidentally flashes the bottom card red/black is better than a 4-color deck.
Then use a cut/cover card. The decision to use a 4 colour or 2 colour deck should not rest on the competence of the dealer.
On every hand, the players need to correctly read their hand and the board.
The dealer is not supposed to ever flash cards.
In 1,000 hands, correct recognition of cards is essential all 1,000 times.
But you think it is more important to design cards to account for some sloppy dealer who flashes cards 1-3 times in those 1,000 hands (if anyone notices).
Oh.
Last edited:
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!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
