• PCF is an eBay Partner. If you make a purchase through one of our links, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Thank you for your support!

Everything you thought you knew about poker is wrong...* (3 Viewers)

Taghkanic

Taghkanic

Straight Flush
Supporter
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
9,544
Reaction score
14,324
Rewards
177
Location
Columbia County, NY
*... or is at least not yet proven to be true​

I’m creating this omnibus post to collect and summarize all of my most irritatingly controversial opinions about poker—which seem to trigger some PCFers into a rage, but which I stand behind. Some if not all of these involve topics I have been researching for several years as part of a book project about the industrial design* of poker:
  • Racetrack-shaped tables crammed with 9-11 bodies suck.
    • Corollary: Poker is better played 6-8 handed.
  • Denoms are not needed on chips for most home games.
  • Four-color decks are vastly superior to two-color decks.
  • Poker-sized cards are preferable to bridge-sized cards.
  • Card shufflers may slow a home game down, not speed it up.
  • GTO applies to all stakes, teaching how to better exploit villains.
  • Hosts take a “my way or the highway” approach at their own risk.
  • Housemolds and oversized inlays are usually hideous.
I’ll provide summaries of each contention in the threads below, with links to past posts (and some flame wars) involving each; and may add some as they arise ;).

None of the above are anything I developed just to troll or otherwise inflame the community—though I may be guilty at times of pushing an idea to an extreme to compel people to expose or question their own assumptions.

I sincerely believe that all such assumptions and received/conventional wisdom deserve interrogation, even if in the end they may get validated. The habit of questioning beliefs forces us to be honest. It also can lead to better understanding how community, commercial, and other standards came into being. Only once the history of a practice or custom is understood, along with the reasons for its evolution, can we know for sure if they are sound and helpful.

Many of these ideas arose from my book research, which has constantly found that technological innovations and economic considerations have driven the shape of poker, as much as actual “best practices.” Others arise simply from my experience of hosting for many years, as well as playing in other home, private and casino games.

There are usually structural reasons behind any change, and poker is no exception. A new method of production, or economies of scale, or perceived efficiencies which benefit the house or management can win the day–rather than what is objectively best for players and the game. Sometimes organic trial-and-error wins out, but othertimes it gets trumped by irrational imperatives or narrow self-interest. I would argue that factors like ergonomics, usability, aesthetics and general player happiness don’t get enough weight; but these should be as much or more a part of the conversation as gee-whiz inventions or cost-cutting measures.

---------------------------
* NOTE: The term “industrial design” refers to the creation of any product which is mass-produced, not to factories, assembly-lines, or other industrial uses.
 
Last edited:
I'll start off the flame wars!!!

Taghkanic said:
Racetrack-shaped tables crammed with 9-11 bodies suck.
Click to expand...
Correct
Taghkanic said:
Denoms are not needed on chips for most home games.
Click to expand...
6 7 , but also see:
  • Hosts take a “my way or the highway” approach at their own risk.
Click to expand...
Taghkanic said:
Card shufflers may slow a home game down, not speed it up.
Click to expand...
Can't wait for this gem
Taghkanic said:
GTO applies to all stakes, teaching how to better exploit villains.
Click to expand...
I would expect nothing less (this post fighting the man on just about every point) from a 'Hold'em player' :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:

Taghkanic said:
Housemolds and oversized inlays are usually hideous.
Click to expand...
Correct


There is a song, and the lyrics are 'You've been married 9 times, hell maybe it's YOU.'

I don't believe that might makes right, and I often find myself the odd man out on most of the opinions or norms society puts forth. However, there is value in crowdsourcing and a beaten path.
 
There is nothing but drama here.

IMG_9835.webp
 
  • Racetrack-shaped tables crammed with 9-11 bodies suck.
    • Corollary: Poker is better played 6-8 handed.
      • Bonus: The shapes of tables should be reconsidered.
See: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/table-shapes-a-bit-of-a-rant.22942/

This one arose from direct observation during games, nudged by my decision to build my first poker table for my home game. How big should the table be? And does it have to be a traditional oval?

I’ve always hated sitting in the 1 or 9 seat at casinos, because the sight lines usually suck. You often can’t see the player on the other side of the dealer at all, and sometimes can’t really see the person next to them (in the 2 or 8 seats). From these seats it can be tough to tell if someone acted, whether they still have cards, or how much they bet, let alone see their stacks.

Bump that to 10 players plus a dealer, and it just keeps getting worse. Not only are you shoulder-to-shoulder with your neighbors, but now the sightlines for two seats on either side of the dealer become terrible. (10 players also usually stinks, because it allows the nits and rocks to play even fewer hands.)

I started looking analytically at the sightlines from each seat. I started to notice that at a 9-handed table, sightlines are can also be difficult for players in what I call the “flat”—the 4-6 seats across from the dealer.

Because the sides of a racetrack-shaped table are straight, the 4, 5, and 6 players are all sitting at the same angle. If the 5 player is a tall or big guy, the 4 and the 6 players start having difficulty seeing each other, much like the 1 and the 9 seats.

This led me to choose an unusual shape for my first table build: A super-elliptical. A super-elliptical has slightly more angled curves, with no players sitting at the exact same angle as the person next to them. (I felt validated in this belief when, 6-12 months after my post, Gorilla Gaming started producing a super-elliptical option with essentially identical proportions and curves as my model.)

That said, I came to realize that the best setup for optimizing sightlines in a self-dealt game is a round table. At a round table, every player can see every other player and his/her chips and cards well. I had played in a lot of firehouse tournaments which used round folding “banquet” tables, and noticed how much clearer everything was. It also seemed a lot easier for amateurs to deal in these self-dealt tourneys. The problem however was that most standard banquet tables are too wide for poker, introducing a different problem: raking pots and collecting cards. Players with shorter arms had trouble with both.

To shrink a round table to a more manageable diameter means that you really don’t want to have more than 8 players (assuming no dealer—then 7 players).

This in turn raises another topic: How many players makes for a “good game”? There is a very juicy, splashy game in my area which is very profitable to play in, but the host allows as many as *11* players at a time. The gameplay gets ridiculous, with the nits folding even more than usual waiting for premiums, and seeing almost every flop 5-7 handed. 10 players is only a little better; and I came to question why 9 players was a casino standard.

Looking into the history of poker, I found that even the 9-player thing was a relatively new casino standard, which then got aped by home and private games. If you look at both rules of poker over the past two centuries, as well as photographs of games throughout its history, you realize than 9-player games barely existed until NLHE took over in recent decades. My sources included the Library of Congress photo archives, magazines, books, artwork and movies. Poker was largely a 2-4 handed game in its earliest days, played at square or small round tables. It expanded over time, but the popularity of 4+ card games, many of them drawing games, limited the number of players. But even in the early days of two-card no limit, nine-handed seems to have been a rarity.

In interviewing poker room managers about their choices, I noticed a common belief that having 9-handed tables was better for them... They thought that they could cram in more players when it was busy, and use fewer dealers when they were slow. My counterpoint to this was that when you have fewer players, more hands get dealt per hour—resulting in more rake for the house. Only a few conceded the point. The irony is that with the pandemic, many casino rooms shifted to 8max to allow for more distancing; and that most have kept this 8-player standard even now that almost no one is masking. (Right decision, wrong reason?)

Meanwhile, when I shifted my home game from a multitable self-dealt tournament to a one-table higher-stakes cash game with a dedicated dealer, I decided to limit seating to 8 players. This was based both on wanting more elbow room for everyone around my superelliptical, and also because I found that the action at a 6-8 handed table was much better. As evidence, I noticed that the amount of money in the box was paradoxically higher in the games with fewer players than when I allowed 9 at the table. People were forced to be more active and battle for more pots when the numbers dipped below 9; some of my biggest games were only 6-7 handed because rebuys happened more often. For those who play more than just pocket pairs and AQ+, it’s just a lot more fun.

(If my home game were self-dealt, I’d go with a smaller round table per above.)
 
Last edited:
Taghkanic said:
Card shufflers may slow a home game down, not speed it up.
Click to expand...

upNdown said:
Ever play in a home game where the deal moves with the button, and the automatic shuffler is in a cart/cabinet?
Click to expand...
I have not, however, I was waiting for clarification. When I read it, the most predominant situation is what I thought of, a dedicated dealer with a shuffler. And to highlight that most of the OP's arguments are directly opposed to the usual or most common situations.

I would still think that if you have a shuffler and passing the deal, you would still use two decks, one to prep, one to deal.
 
  • Card shufflers may slow a home game down, not speed it up.
upNdown said:
He’s right though. Ever play in a home game where the deal moves with the button, and the automatic shuffler is in a cart/cabinet?
Click to expand...

That wasn’t my rationale, but it’s a good one I hadn't even considered. I’ll get to this in more depth when I return (have posted about it before), but briefly:

In the games I play with a dedicated dealer, the usual practice is to use two decks. The deck out of play gets pushed to the button, which the button shuffles as best as they can. When the hand is over, the dealer takes the amateurishly-shuffled deck and gives it 1-2 more shuffles/cuts to ensure a better mix.

This is usually very quick and efficient operation, typically performed while other business is being taken care of by players (passing in their cards, collecting chips, etc.). I find it moves along briskly, and provides plenty of shuffling, even if the button is a bad shuffle. It still means the deck gets mixed/cut multiple times before reaching the dealer.

A card shuffler by contrast requires the dealer to stack the cards carefully, place the cards precisely in the machine, and later remove them, then put deck #2 in. Often the dealer will then give the shuffled deck yet another cut and/or riffle. I find that this at best takes roughly the same amount of time as the button method.

And then you have the delays when the machine jams or has some other error message. In a casino, this can result in a major delay if the dealer has to call the floor, as is often the case.
 
Last edited:
Love this post.

I need Denoms, I need to see NUMBERS, I need them!!!!!!!!! I hate the ole piece of paper taped to the wall to show what value is of the red chip and blue etc...My friends are like what blue again, hey how many red should I put in, what's green worth...grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS.

Elliptical table 1k more than gorilla home table grrrrrrrrrr been debating which one to buy or a while now. It's hard for me to pull trigger 1k more just for a different shaped table. But obviously now you guys are talking me into it
 
Taghkanic said:
  • Racetrack-shaped tables crammed with 9-11 bodies suck.
    • Corollary: Poker is better played 6-8 handed.
  • Denoms are not needed on chips for most home games.
  • Poker-sized cards are preferable to bridge-sized cards.
  • Card shufflers may slow a home game down, not speed it up.
  • GTO applies to all stakes, teaching how to better exploit villains.
  • Hosts take a “my way or the highway” approach at their own risk.
  • Housemolds and oversized inlays are usually hideous.
Click to expand...
1767027870165.webp
:tup:
 
Taghkanic said:
Hosts take a “my way or the highway” approach at their own risk.
Click to expand...
I’ll take an angle on this one too. Hosts who are what we used to call anal-retentive (but the descriptor seems to have fallen out of favor, so we can go with fussy and or fastidious) about their chips and their cards, put everybody on edge.

Can’t have a relaxed game if you think the host is watching you to make sure you peel your cards properly.

Who wants to play in a game where you can’t occasionally speak your emotions with your chips?

I’ll be even more respectful to your property than I am to my own. But we’re playing a game here. And if you’re more worried about bending a card or breaking a chip than you are about the comfort and enjoyment of your guests, then sure, have it your way and I’ll take the highway.
 
Taghkanic said:
  • Housemolds and oversized inlays are usually hideous.
Click to expand...

Oversized inlays cover too much of the chip, IMHO. I want to see an interesting inlay, but I also want to see the colorful chip/spots as well.

If it's ok to play with oversized inlays, it must be ok to play with JUST a stack of inlays and no chip.

:ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
 
Baldeagle9 said:
I need Denoms, I need to see NUMBERS, I need them!!!!!!!!! I hate the ole piece of paper taped to the wall to show what value is of the red chip and blue etc...My friends are like what blue again, hey how many red should I put in, what's green worth...grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS.
Click to expand...

I’ll get to it in detail later, but the core of my argument here is that people who repeatedly ask how much each chip is worth do so regardless of whether it is denominated or not.
 
Machine said:
You can get another controversial argument out of this!

The typical shaped oval table SUCKS as much as a racetrack.

I prefer the elliptical tables:

Click to expand...

I prefer a super-ellipse to a regular ellipse just because the ends are less pointy, which can be awkward. But both are better than the “oval” racetrack shape, to be sure.
 
PlaidDragon said:
Oversized inlays cover too much of the chip, IMHO. I want to see an interesting inlay, but I also want to see the colorful chip/spots as well.

If it's ok to play with oversized inlays, it must be ok to play with JUST a stack of inlays and no chip.

:ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Tell this to the people that just bought Jim out of Harrah’s WSOP sets.
 
Taghkanic said:
  • Racetrack-shaped tables crammed with 9-11 bodies suck.
    • Corollary: Poker is better played 6-8 handed.
      • Bonus: The shapes of tables should be reconsidered.
See: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/table-shapes-a-bit-of-a-rant.22942/

This one arose from direct observation during games, nudged by my decision to build my first poker table for my home game. How big should the table be? And does it have to be a traditional oval?

I’ve always hated sitting in the 1 or 9 seat at casinos, because the sight lines usually suck. You often can’t see the player on the other side of the dealer at all, and sometimes can’t really see the person next to them (in the 2 or 8 seats). From these seats it can be tough to tell if someone acted, whether they still have cards, or how much they bet, let alone see their stacks.

Bump that to 10 players plus a dealer, and it just keeps getting worse. Not only are you shoulder-to-shoulder with your neighbors, but now the sightlines for two seats on either side of the dealer become terrible. (10 players also usually stinks, because it allows the nits and rocks to play even fewer hands.)

I started looking analytically at the sightlines from each seat. I started to notice that at a 9-handed table, sightlines are can also be difficult for players in what I call the “flat”—the 4-6 seats across from the dealer.

Because the sides of a racetrack-shaped table are straight, the 4, 5, and 6 players are all sitting at the same angle. If the 5 player is a tall or big guy, the 4 and the 6 players start having difficulty seeing each other, much like the 1 and the 9 seats.

This led me to choose an unusual shape for my first table build: A super-elliptical. A super-elliptical has slightly more angled curves, with no players sitting at the exact same angle as the person next to them. (I felt validated in this belief when, 6-12 months after my post, Gorilla Gaming started producing a super-elliptical option with essentially identical proportions and curves as my model.)

That said, I came to realize that the best setup for optimizing sightlines in a self-dealt game is a round table. At a round table, every player can see every other player and his/her chips and cards well. I had played in a lot of firehouse tournaments which used round folding “banquet” tables, and noticed how much clearer everything was. It also seemed a lot easier for amateurs to deal in these self-dealt tourneys. The problem however was that most standard banquet tables are too wide for poker, introducing a different problem: raking pots and collecting cards. Players with shorter arms had trouble with both.

To shrink a round table to a more manageable diameter means that you really don’t want to have more than 8 players (assuming no dealer—then 7 players).

This in turn raises another topic: How many players makes for a “good game”? There is a very juicy, splashy game in my area which is very profitable to play in, but the host allows as many as *11* players at a time. The gameplay gets ridiculous, with the nits folding even more than usual waiting for premiums, and seeing almost every flop 5-7 handed. 10 players is only a little better; and I came to question why 9 players was a casino standard.

Looking into the history of poker, I found that even the 9-player thing was a relatively new casino standard, which then got aped by home and private games. If you look at both rules of poker over the past two centuries, as well as photographs of games throughout its history, you realize than 9-player games barely existed until NLHE took over in recent decades. My sources included the Library of Congress photo archives, magazines, books, artwork and movies. Poker was largely a 2-4 handed game in its earliest days, played at square or small round tables. It expanded over time, but the popularity of 4+ card games, many of them drawing games, limited the number of players. But even in the early days of two-card no limit, nine-handed seems to have been a rarity.

In interviewing poker room managers about their choices, I noticed a common belief that having 9-handed tables was better for them... They thought that they could cram in more players when it was busy, and use fewer dealers when they were slow. My counterpoint to this was that when you have fewer players, more hands get dealt per hour—resulting in more rake for the house. Only a few conceded the point. The irony is that with the pandemic, many casino rooms shifted to 8max to allow for more distancing; and that most have kept this 8-player standard even now that almost no one is masking. (Right decision, wrong reason?)

Meanwhile, when I shifted my home game from a multitable self-dealt tournament to a one-table higher-stakes cash game with a dedicated dealer, I decided to limit seating to 8 players. This was based both on wanting more elbow room for everyone around my superelliptical, and also because I found that the action at a 6-8 handed table was much better. As evidence, I noticed that the amount of money in the box was paradoxically higher in the games with fewer players than when I allowed 9 at the table. People were forced to be more active and battle for more pots when the numbers dipped below 9; some of my biggest games were only 6-7 handed because rebuys happened more often. For those who play more than just pocket pairs and AQ+, it’s just a lot more fun.

(If my home game were self-dealt, I’d go with a smaller round table per above.)
Click to expand...
You should write a book about it this…oh wait.


You already did.


And I didn’t read it.
 
  • Denoms are not needed on chips for most home games.
See: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/home-game-chips-why-denominate-at-all.39143/

This one seems to really trigger some people, but my basic argument has been:

  1. In your typical home game, the players are regs who play there over and over and over again with the same chips. If anyone still needs to ask what a given color is worth after the first couple of orbits, let alone their first couple of games, the problem is with them, not the chips.
  2. Most experienced poker players accustom themselves to unusual chip color schemes very quickly. Within a couple of hands, or an orbit, at most. If you are still confused after more than 10 minutes, either the host has done something deliberately confusing (like making the reds $25s and the greens $5) or you are not really trying.
  3. The players who ask “what is this color chip worth” tend to ask that question *whether or not it is denominated.* And they will probably ask again in 5-10 minutes. It’s a them problem, not a chip problem.
  4. People generally identify chip values by looking at the colors (and if necessary, the spots). If you are looking at a big messy pot full of four different colors of chips, you “read” its size via the color, not by looking at your own stack and reading the denoms.
  5. Unless the host is using really non-standard chip values, you can easily figure it out by (a) looking at your starting stack, (b) looking at what people put out for blinds, and/or (c) noticing what others bet. For example, if you buy in to a 1/2 game for $100 and are given three barrels of reds chips, one green chip, and 15 white chips, it is 99.99% likely that the reds are $5s, the green is a $25, and the whites are $1s. If on the first hand the small blind puts out one white chip and the big blind puts out a red chip and gets three whites in change, there’s your answer.
FWIW, my initial impulse here came mostly out of my graphic design background. A poker chip label or inlay is pretty small; it is a design challenge to cram a name, a location, a logo or image, maybe some decoration, plus a number onto a .875-1.25" disc. Sometimes there are even some other elements like a security thingamabob.

My second impulse came from playing in lots of firehouse, VFW/Legion and other social hall games. These often used cheap dice chips without denominations. Even though the level of player was generally very unskilled, almost no one except the true numbskulls and drunks had a problem remembering the basic 100-500-1000 denoms. Sometimes there was brief confusion later when bigger denoms came in, but since these were relatively scarce, and different from the lower colors, it wasn't an issue.

Now... Marking myself as either a total hypocrite or someone who knows when to bow to convention... When I made my first fully custom THC set, in the end I did use (relatively inobtrusive) denoms. There were a couple of reasons for this: (1) I used fairly unconventional colors for the $2, $5 and $25 chips. (2) I was able to squeeze them in without messing up my designs, so I sighed and did it. (3) Resale value, in the event I ever sell the set, knowing that most PCFers will want/expect denoms.

I still get the occasional player who asks what certain chips are worth... Even though they are in fact denominated. Oh well.

In general, I think the attachment to denoms is largely due to convention—they make the chip look “official” or “real.” But kind of like “real casino weight,” I think that is largely in people’s heads, not an actual usability problem.
 
  • Four-color decks are vastly superior to two-color decks.
See: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/love-for-4-color-suits.137424/post-2798762
And: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/4-color-decks-yay-or-nay.109333/post-2326533

To me, this ought to be the least controversial of all the items listed. But nooooo...

Card games like poker require players to be able to “read” their cards and the board clearly. It’s in everyone’s interest to try to minimize card recognition mistakes.

Mistakes can be increased via typographical blunders (for example, choosing a font where the A and 4 look too much alike). More common is misreading suits, especially spades and clubs (which are formally more alike than hearts and diamonds).

Using a distinct color for each suit doubles the chances of eliminating such errors. It’s just obviously and objectively better. You are less like to confuse a blue diamond with a green club with a red heart or a black spade.

Sure, colorblind people may still have issues. But they already have this issue with two colors. (Nothing looks more like red... than red. And nothing looks more like black... Than black.)

So why have two-color decks remained a standard for so long? Doesn’t that suggest that they have survived a test of time? Two main reasons:

(1) My research indicates that two-color decks became a standard thing literally centuries ago, mainly due to the limitations and cost of producing cards in a pre-industrial, let alone pre-desktop context.

It was understood that you needed to differentiate suits, but running four different colors on an old-fashioned press was very labor and ink-intensive. So they just used two, either hand-coloring the face cards, or doing one separate sheet with all the facecards to limit the number of passes necessary. With the advent of modern printing, especially 21st Century printing where adding colors is rarely even a cost increase, this compromise is no longer necessary.

(2) The other reasons are convention, habits, familiarity. People hate design changes in almost anything they have grown accustomed to. Change the design of a popular soda’s can? Your favorite cereal? The layout of the front page of the local newspaper? Those daring to do so had better be ready for a firestorm of complaints, at least at first.

Even if the new design is vastly superior.

Then pretty soon people get used to the change... And like it. Then it gets changed again, rinse and repeat.
 
Taghkanic said:
  • Four-color decks are vastly superior to two-color decks.
See: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/love-for-4-color-suits.137424/post-2798762
And: https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/4-color-decks-yay-or-nay.109333/post-2326533

To me, this ought to be the least controversial of all the items listed. But nooooo...

Card games like poker require players to be able to “read” their cards and the board clearly. It’s in everyone’s interest to try to minimize card recognition mistakes.

Mistakes can be increased via typographical blunders (for example, choosing a font where the A and 4 look too much alike). More common is misreading suits, especially spades and clubs (which are formally more alike than hearts and diamonds).

Using a distinct color for each suit doubles the chances of eliminating such errors. It’s just obviously and objectively better. You are less like to confuse a blue diamond with a green club with a red heart or a black spade.

Sure, colorblind people may still have issues. But they already have this issue with two colors. (Nothing looks more like red... than red. And nothing looks more like black... Than black.)

So why have two-color decks remained a standard for so long? Doesn’t that suggest that they have survived a test of time? Two main reasons:

(1) My research indicates that two-color decks became a standard thing literally centuries ago, mainly due to the limitations and cost of producing cards in a pre-industrial, let alone pre-desktop context.

It was understood that you needed to differentiate suits, but running four different colors on an old-fashioned press was very labor and ink-intensive. So they just used two, either hand-coloring the face cards, or doing one separate sheet with all the facecards to limit the number of passes necessary. With the advent of modern printing, especially 21st Century printing where adding colors is rarely even a cost increase, this compromise is no longer necessary.

(2) The other reasons are convention, habits, familiarity. People hate design changes in almost anything they have grown accustomed to. Change the design of a popular soda’s can? Your favorite cereal? The layout of the front page of the local newspaper? Those daring to do so had better be ready for a firestorm of complaints, at least at first.

Even if the new design is vastly superior.

Then pretty soon people get used to the change... And like it. Then it gets changed again, rinse and repeat.
Click to expand...
I won't argue that 4-color is superior to 2-color (though I'm not sure about vastly.) But they're ugly, I hate them, and nobody can make me use them. I had a desjgn 4-color deck and I showed them to my players. They hated them too.
Case closed (at least for my house.)
 
upNdown said:
I won't argue that 4-color is superior to 2-color (though I'm not sure about vastly.) But they're ugly, I hate them, and nobody can make me use them.
Click to expand...

Many two-color decks are ugly, too.

Anything can be badly designed. Even a hammer.

upNdown said:
I had a desjgn 4-color deck and I showed them to my players. They hated them too.
Case closed (at least for my house.)
Click to expand...

I tried the Desjgn decks as well, the ones they initially produced maybe 4-5 years ago. They had a basic flaw that the color choices for both the backs and fronts were kind of lousy—too close. My players didn't like them either, though not because they were four-color, but because of that design mistake.

I then tried Copags, and my regs were fine with them. I used those for a few years.

More recently I bought the FSX four-colors (Faded Spade version 3.0? 4.0? I can't keep track anymore.) These were the best I’d used yet: Nice typography, distinct colors, and unlike many I like the texture/stiffness of the stock. They also have proved incredibly durable, with far fewer nicks and bends etc. than the Copags or other two-colors I’ve used in the past.

If you don’t like four-color decks, maybe try more options before ruling them all out. If I bought a random OLED tv and it was bad, that wouldn't be a reason for me to decide all OLEDs suck.


P.S. One of the weird comments I’ve heard about four-color decks is “I like them for online poker, but not live.” IDGI
 
Machine said:
Do you use 4-color decks in your game?
Click to expand...

Yes, see above. I was using Copag four-colors, having not liked the Desjgn four-colors which were my first such buy maybe 4-5 years ago. I have since used the Faded Spade FSX four-colors, and think they are just about perfect. Much more durable and better-designed than the Copags.
 
Not needing denominated chips to tell denoms apart but needing stupid suit colors to tell suits apart, seems contradictory to me.

upNdown said:
But they're ugly, I hate them, and nobody can make me use them. I had a desjgn 4-color deck and I showed them to my players. They hated them too.
Click to expand...
+1
 

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

S
Will No Limit Hold'em always be king?
Replies
21
Views
811
suitedpair54
suitedpair54
acezag
Why do you love poker?
Replies
19
Views
765
Rodog123
Rodog123
GoJo_Dingo
For Sale Majestic Card Room Poker Chips
Replies
5
Views
750
GoJo_Dingo
GoJo_Dingo
David251999
Automatic shuffler for home game – worth it if you use bridge cards?
Replies
9
Views
629
Coyote
Coyote
demax51
What kind of lighting is best?
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
demax51
demax51
Back
Top Bottom