Sorry again
@dizzyChipper - I have all my tournament chips sorted separately already and only host tournament format- no help needed there at all luckily (so no need for a cash set) . The chips I listed above and now just below are 'spares'. I want to convert my large collection of spares into a number of
WTHC sets that I can then eventually sell on this forum. I want to maximise / optimise the number of 'sellable' sets and then I will sell off whatever remains ideally supporting getting
@Emitsu the chips he needs.
The chips I am looking to sell on are ...
660 x 5000
900 x 1000
884 x 500
1595 x 100
1600 x 25
1383 x 5
1500 x 1
200 x .25
So a helpful answer might be - OK you can make 3 cash sets and 4 tourney sets organised with the following breakdowns. I even tried the following ChatGPT prompt to see if it helped
"I own a large number of poker chips in the following denominations: 660 x 5000 denomination, 900 x 1000 denomination, 884 x 500 denomination, 1595 x 100 denomination, 1600 x 25 denomination, 1383 x 5 denomination, 1500 x 1 denomination, 200 x .25 denomination. I would like to split this collection up into a number of playable poker sets of say 400, 500 or 600 chips each suitable for either cash or tournament play. Can you please suggest how best to do that to maximise the number of playable sets I obtain from my collection while ensuring the sets are playable. My best guess is that a cash game with include chips with denomination .25, 1, 5, 25 and 100 while a tournament set will contain chips with denominations of 25, 100, 500, 1000 and 5000."
It answered as follows but not sure I agree with it hence the question to the experts here!
Thought for 2m 40s
Here’s a split that
maximises the number of playable sets while keeping each set “sensible” for cash or tournament play, using exactly the denom groupings you suggested.
Best-maximising split:
- 5 × Cash sets (400 chips each) = 2,000 chips
- 9 × Tournament sets (500 chips each) = 4,500 chips
Total playable sets: 14 (and you’ll still have plenty of higher/lower chips left over for top-ups)
A) Cash set (400 chips) ×
Uses:
£0.25 / £1 / £5 / £25 / £100 (good for typical cash structures; quarters are mainly for small blind / rake / odd pots)
Per cash set (400):
- 40 × 0.25
- 80 × 1
- 120 × 5
- 120 × 25
- 40 × 100
Why this works:
- Enough low chips to make change (1s and 5s)
- Plenty of 25s to support larger pots / rebuys
- Some 100s so the table doesn’t bog down later
- Uses quarters efficiently (you only have 200 total → exactly 5 sets at 40 each)
B) Tournament set (500 chips) ×
Uses:
25 / 100 / 500 / 1000 / 5000
Per tournament set (500):
- 110 × 25
- 155 × 100
- 95 × 500
- 100 × 1000
- 40 × 5000
Why this works:
- Strong early-game coverage (25s + 100s = 265 chips)
- Enough mid-denoms (500/1000) to colour-up smoothly
- A controlled number of 5000s (so you don’t burn through your 25/100 supply too fast)
- This design is tuned to your inventory: it uses all 100s and all 1000s exactly across 9 sets.
Inventory check (so you can trust it)
Chips used in the 14 sets
- 5000: 360 used (of 660)
- 1000: 900 used (of 900)
- 500: 855 used (of 884)
- 100: 1595 used (of 1595)
- 25: 1590 used (of 1600)
- 5: 600 used (of 1383)
- 1: 400 used (of 1500)
- 0.25: 200 used (of 200)
Left over after making the sets
- 300 × 5000
- 29 × 500
- 10 × 25
- 783 × 5
- 1100 × 1
- (0 quarters, 0 hundreds, 0 thousands)
Those leftovers are actually useful: you can
“upgrade” some cash sets (more 1s/5s), or create “dealer/house reserves”, or build a couple of
practice/backup mini-sets.
If you want fewer types of sets (simpler)
If you don’t care about cash sets and just want maximum tournament sets from the full pile, you can do
11 tournament sets of 500 (with a different per-set mix), but that leaves you with quarters that don’t fit anywhere. The
14-set plan above is the best “maximum playable sets” outcome while still producing genuinely usable cash + tournament boxes.
If you tell me your
typical game sizes (e.g., “cash: 6–8 players” / “tournament: 10–20 players”) I can tweak the per-set distributions to better match table demands (e.g., more 25s for bigger fields, fewer 5000s, etc.)
without reducing the 14-set total.
