Cash Game How many 50 cent fracs for a .50/1 game? (1 Viewer)

[upNdown]

I've never played a .50/1.00 game and I always figured if I did, I'd just use quarters. But it occurs to me that you could build a set cheaply because you don't need many fracs for a .50/1, right? I mean I could envision a full table working fine with just a barrels of fracs. I think if I was gonna go that route, I'd just get two barrels and be done with it. Am I off-base here?

 

[detroitdad]

100 x .50.

 

[upNdown]

100 x .50.

I get that it's nice to have fulll racks and tall stacks, but I'm pretty sure that's not necessary.

 

[Rhodeman77]

I would want 60 at the minimum for a full table. I wouldn't want to have to make change every hand because one person has them all.

Also I guess you are planning on only betting in full dollar amounts after the flop?

6 per player is the least I would feel comfortable with.

 

[detroitdad]

Is like starting stacks of

10 x .5
20 x 1
15 x 5

You could always just host a 1/1 game?

 

[MrWitti]

We always play 0.50/1 each player starting with 10 is enough. Also easy to make startstacks
10
30
13
Since they prefer to have enough ones in play

 

[moose]

Is like starting stacks of

10 x .5
20 x 1
15 x 5

This is the STD starting stack we give out and run .50/.50 blinds. I prefer using .50 chips because it eliminates the ability of those annoying guys who like to bet odd amounts like $4.75 and force everyone else to match or make change from the pot which just slows the game down.

 

[ovo]

nl 60, limit more

 

[Sal Bandini]

Go to 1/1 and then your requirement is zero $.50 chips. That gives you more to spend on the other denominations.

Also, don't think in terms of starting stacks for each player. Instead, think in terms of racks of each denom on the table. Starting stacks will be uneven after a few hands anyway.

 

[Nex]

Think it massively depends on the limpiness of your players combined with how annoyed they get when they have to make change all the time. Since I can't or don't want to anticipate that variable I personally would go safe and plan for a rather limpy game. For a 25c/50c my perceived ideal is 16 chips per player (I think a lot of people here would say though it's overkill) but let's stick with with that for those calculations for now.

At 25c/50c you'll need to drop at least three of those chips for a full orbit whereas at 50c/$1 it's merely but still at least one, so that's a ratio of 3:1. 16 chips divided by 3 would be 5 and a fraction, and since that's an odd number you'd either round up to 6 or down to 4.

I also think it's still good thinking with starting stacks in mind. Just given you plan with exactly one starting stack per seat at a table (i.e. concurrent players).
When anyone rebuys, it's already bonus if they get really small denoms again with their buyin. Giving them higher denoms works just as well at that point because there's still enough fractionals/small denoms in play at that very table so making change is no problem. Someone is bound to have a bigger stack than the others. Unless there is rake but even then the "house" can make change.
Thinking in racks per table is a bit too... granulary... for my taste.

 

[Seeking Alpha Social Club]

I run a .50 / $1 game every week with 14 to 20 players showing up. I use 1 rack of .50s and it works great. So I imagine 40 to 60 would be more than adequate for a 1 table game.

 

[Sal Bandini]

Think it massively depends on the limpiness of your players combined with how annoyed they get when they have to make change all the time. Since I can't or don't want to anticipate that variable I personally would go safe and plan for a rather limpy game. For a 25c/50c my perceived ideal is 16 chips per player (I think a lot of people here would say though it's overkill) but let's stick with with that for those calculations for now.

At 25c/50c you'll need to drop at least three of those chips for a full orbit whereas at 50c/$1 it's merely but still at least one, so that's a ratio of 3:1. 16 chips divided by 3 would be 5 and a fraction, and since that's an odd number you'd either round up to 6 or down to 4.

I also think it's still good thinking with starting stacks in mind. Just given you plan with exactly one starting stack per seat at a table (i.e. concurrent players).
When anyone rebuys, it's already bonus if they get really small denoms again with their buyin. Giving them higher denoms works just as well at that point because there's still enough fractionals/small denoms in play at that very table so making change is no problem. Someone is bound to have a bigger stack than the others. Unless there is rake but even then the "house" can make change.
Thinking in racks per table is a bit too... granulary... for my taste.

Thinking in racks is much simpler than thinking in starting stacks. Your rounding up to 6 or down to 4 because of 3.1 ratio is more granulary than saying 100 blind chips on the table.

Do you require all players to buy in with same amount in cash game? Maybe some want to buy in with 50BB, some 100BB, some 200BB. Now your starting stacks are different.

If instead you decide 1 rack small denom 2 racks working chip for one table then you just hand those out in beginning. Rebuys will always be in larger denoms.

 

[guyfleegman]

@JeepologyOffroad

 

[upNdown]

those annoying guys who like to bet odd amounts like $4.75

I used to be that guy. I guess when I understood the game less, I thought that throwing out quirky bets like that might make people THINK.
But anyway, I’m all for staying on the lower end of frac counts because:
1) I think people tend to exaggerate how bad change-making is and
2) no matter how many chips you give people, there’s always gonna be change-making. It’s inescapable.

 

[JustinInMN]

1) I think people tend to exaggerate how bad change-making is and
2) no matter how many chips you give people, there’s always gonna be change-making. It’s inescapable.

SO THIS!

My set uses the 0.50 frac. 4-6 per player is plenty. They never use more than one in a bet. (Like with T500 and T1000 are together.)

And making change for the 0.50 frac is the easiest change to make, always a simple swap with a single, easier than quarters.

 

[MrCatPants]

I used to be that guy. I guess when I understood the game less, I thought that throwing out quirky bets like that might make people THINK.
But anyway, I’m all for staying on the lower end of frac counts because:
1) I think people tend to exaggerate how bad change-making is and
2) no matter how many chips you give people, there’s always gonna be change-making. It’s inescapable.

I give people either 4 or 6 fracs a piece. It promotes making "full" dollar bets and almost never make change.

 

[upNdown]

Oh shit, I started this thread? That’s funny.

Well, since then, I’ve sold off all my sets (which were always built for .25/.50.) and now that I’ve started buying again, I’m building .50/.50 single table sets, with 50-60 half-dollar fracs, just to be economical.

 

[johnnycnote]

This is the STD starting stack we give out and run .50/.50 blinds. I prefer using .50 chips because it eliminates the ability of those annoying guys who like to bet odd amounts like $4.75 and force everyone else to match or make change from the pot which just slows the game down.

Hear that @Blaster, it's annoying!

 

[JustinInMN]

Well, since then, I’ve sold off all my sets (which were always built for .25/.50.) and now that I’ve started buying again, I’m building .50/.50 single table sets, with 50-60 half-dollar fracs, just to be economical.

I agree, I am really glad I went this way with my customs. I did get a full rack, but that way I assume I am covered for two tables. And I really liked the orange with black design I used.

 

[MrCatPants]

Anyone who is playing .25 .50 should just start playing .50 .50 and get on with life

 

[boltonguy]

200 fracs - I love fracs! I barrel per player on buyin with plenty left for rebuys. Makes for frac towers but oddly we still end up making change!!
Is something wrong with me? 200 fracs for 8 players seems excessive but I cant help myself!

 

[RocAFella1]

60-80 is the sweet spot. More if the game is limpy/passive; less if the game action/aggressive.

 

[upNdown]

Anyone who is playing .25 .50 should just start playing .50 .50 and get on with life

Nah. There's still room in NLHE for a small blind. Like I said, if you're limited on chips, then .50/.50 makes more sense. But if I had my paulson quarters back, I'd be playing .25/.50.
Not that I'm playing anything these days.

 

[rowlin]

Number of $0.50 chips per person: 6 to 10

Number of $0.50 chips in about tree-fiddy: 7

Coincidence? Maybe.

But maybe not.

 

[allforcharity]

I would say 6 half dollars per player is enough at 1 table. You could split 1 rack between 2 tables of 10 and it would probably be enough.

 

[BGinGA]

Not that I'm playing anything these days.

Can I interest you in a game of Badugi Hi/Lo?

 

[Kid_Eastwood]

I'd say 6, 8 or 10 per starting stack.

 

[JustinInMN]

I'd say 6, 8 or 10 per starting stack.

The table max when I host 0.50-1 is $112.50.

 

[upNdown]

Can I interest you in a game of Badugi Hi/Lo?

I actually played badugi for the first time, this week on free pokerstars. Hated it. I suppose it plays better with real money so you can snow and all that. But I’m in no rush to find out.

 

[ChaosRock]

.