Cash Game Having always 1 as the betting unit (2 Viewers)

[Coyote]

The idea occurred to me having read a post by @abby99 in another thread:
" It's also helpful to require that all bets following the blinds, including the opening bet, be in increments of $1."

It seems that the easiest, safest and softest-on-the-brain way for bet construction and pot counting (especially but not exclusively in PL games) is to have indeed 1 as your betting unit / minimum bet / big (and small) blind.

People, however, may not be financially comfortable (or, not excited - the other way round) playing 1/1 of US Dollars. Or, if they' re happy with that level of stakes, they would have to play e.g. 8/8 in another country, in that country's currency, equalling 1/1 USD.

So, I wonder if the solution would be to establish a table-to bank-ratio adapted to specific groups of players and their currencies, keeping always 1 as the table betting unit.
For ease of exchange between table and bank, the ratio would have to be at least a whole number, of course (like 5:1, or 4:1 etc).
That could produce odd real-world (bank) chip values, but I guess players should be encouraged to forget about real-world values of their chips once they have bought them and focus on their table/face value in betting units.

Any thoughts on that, from your experience?

 

[Rhodeman77]

There are a few people on here that multiply actual buy in x 4, so a $100 buy in gets $400 in chips and then divide the cash out by 4.

That way no expensive frac chips are needed especially for a lot of sets that don’t even have them.

The only issue I can foresee with it is late at night/early AM after some drinks and lack of sleep making a math error with the extra step of dividing the total by 4.

 

[grantc54]

I have done this when playing OFC, and occasionally when playing cash. I am also curious as to what others experience has been.

One consideration is game security, I would expect once you establish a ratio you will need to stick to it, otherwise you run the risk of someone pocketing a chip and re-using it later when it is worth more.

Thanks,
Grant

 

[abby99]

Just so there's no misunderstanding about my poorly worded explanation, let me offer an example:

In a PL game with .25/.50 blinds. An opening raise to pot would be to $2: 3x.50 + .5 = $2. If rounding were used and one player limped, the next player could raise to 3x.50 + .50 + .50 = 2.50. In both cases, the small blind is considered to be complete (.50). House rules could state that pots/bets would be rounded up to the next dollar, making the second case $3 instead of $2.50.

I've played .25/.50 with a minimum opening bet of $1. If one player opens to $1, the subsequent pot raise would be 3x$1 + .50 + .50 = $4. Another way of doing this is to round up each blind to the amount of the minimum open, in which case the pot raise would be 3x$1 + 1 + 1 = $5. In other words, bets would be in whole dollars (e.g., no bets of $10.25). It makes calculating the pot sooooo much easier. As @BGinGA put it,

Both of these are covered in RROP (assumed-completion even acknowledged as being used some places for tournament play). An opening pot raise is always 4bb, and post-flop pots are rounded up to the next significant chip value for betting purposes. Much easier than trying to calculate using 1/2-bets and account for loose change.

As has been mentioned, it's important to establish a procedure at the beginning of the game and stick with it.

 

[Rhodeman77]

In my mixed $1/2 game, for PLO we make all bets in $5 increments after the flop and round up the pot from the preflop betting to the nearest $5 amount for calculating pot. It makes it faster/easier for everyone.

We also allow the opening bet to be $10, but can open for less if wanted.

Nobody wants to think so much when someone bets $17 on the flop, gets 2 callers and have someone then bet pot. It would slow the game down too much. If the bet was $15 or $20 it is much easier to do the math in your head.

 

[BGinGA]

The idea occurred to me having read a post by @abby99 in another thread:
" It's also helpful to require that all bets following the blinds, including the opening bet, be in increments of $1."

It seems that the easiest, safest and softest-on-the-brain way for bet construction and pot counting (especially but not exclusively in PL games) is to have indeed 1 as your betting unit / minimum bet / big (and small) blind.

People, however, may not be financially comfortable (or, not excited - the other way round) playing 1/1 of US Dollars. Or, if they' re happy with that level of stakes, they would have to play e.g. 8/8 in another country, in that country's currency, equalling 1/1 USD.

So, I wonder if the solution would be to establish a table-to bank-ratio adapted to specific groups of players and their currencies, keeping always 1 as the table betting unit.
For ease of exchange between table and bank, the ratio would have to be at least a whole number, of course (like 5:1, or 4:1 etc).
That could produce odd real-world (bank) chip values, but I guess players should be encouraged to forget about real-world values of their chips once they have bought them and focus on their table/face value in betting units.

Any thoughts on that, from your experience?

Personally, I don't like it. I buy - and use - chips with actual denominations on them for a reason.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Big fan of rounding bet increments to the next $1 in PL games with frac blinds. In a NL game, meh. Pot counting and splitting just aren't that often a concern, and when they are, the presence of fracs seldom makes a big difference.

As to going straight to $1/$1 to avoid fracs altogether, it depends on the crowd. Playing $1/$1 versus $0.25/$0.50 or lower can be a big difference, though I would say that a $0.50/$1 game should just skip the foreplay and bump it up the extra half-dollar.

Maybe it's just a personal quirk, but I do not like scaling the chip values up at all. I can see the argument for it when you're using a set of rare chips and a frac isn't available or is cost-prohibitive, but I still don't like it.

 

[TheOctagon]

As to going straight to $1/$1 to avoid fracs altogether, it depends on the crowd.

This is an interesting problem, particularly with owners who don't want to buy multiple sets of chips to handle different potential stakes at a limit or PL table. I guess you do what's right for your game and your budget considering your players and your game. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't torn over this - I would like a new cash set that can handle limit play, but I don't necessarily know what stakes we'll end up at or most people are comfortable with (and I do play with two groups who range between microstakes down to the nickel and low stakes at $1/2). If I lay out for a set that handles $0.25/$0.50 up to a $1/2 that seems reasonable. It wouldn't be the two-denom monster builds that are typical of a true limit set, but it could provide flexibility without having to color up all the time.

I think the bet sizing point is right on though - handling fractional amounts in pot bets is burdensome. The round up or min open rule I think is going into play in my next game.

 

[detroitdad]

I have some beautiful fracs. I don't like to round at my house. The more in play the better lol.