ExileExistence
High Hand
I recently hosted my first poker tournament with a new tournament chip set and now decided to also prepare for a cash game. Therefore, I need to get a cash-game chip set, but I’m struggling with the setup. Yes, cash game structures have been discussed here a million times, but from everything I’ve read (and I’ve read a lot), I’m still unsure and haven’t found anything that addresses my specific situation.
For denominations, 3 are usually totally sufficient, as long as they have a 4-5x ratio between them.
Furthermore, I often see people suggesting only 100 of the smallest denomination (e.g., nickels). That might be correct in theory or at more advanced tables, where players rarely just call the BB and instead fold or raise using the next denomination. In those environments, the smallest chip is mainly for posting blinds, so 100x is enough. But in my amateur games I’ve observed the opposite: players limp or min-raise very often, which uses the smallest denomination. Constant limping means you either need more small chips or accept lots of change-making at the table. So I’d suggest going with 200x.
I could instead run $0.25/$0.25 using $0.25, $1 and $5 chips (Paulson sets often include quarters). But I prefer the big blind to be double the small blind for simplicity (and I’d need to read more about how SB=BB affects play). Also, a $25 max buy-in (100BB) is already the upper comfort limit for everyone, so there would likely be no rebuys. I can imagine this reduces the number of exciting all-in situations, because with $5 or $10 buy-ins, people might rebuy and create more action, but my friends definitely won’t rebuy if they’re already in for $25
The most common home cash game is probably $0.25/$0.50, but realistically none of my friends will bring $50 or risk losing that much. Or they will never join a poker game again. Maybe in 10 years, but not for now.
My second concern: I'd like to mimick a casino feeling, where you typically play with the 1s, 5s and 25s. Those redbirds ($5s) just look so lovely most of the time *_* so I'd like to use them in play. This would also suit a Paulson set, since distributions like 200×$1, 200×$5, 80×$25, 20×$100 are common (or atleast I've seen a few like this or 100x/300x/80x/20x).
But unless I use a $0.05 base chip for my set and the game, a 1:1 ratio will always be too high for my stakes. So I’m considering introducing a conversion factor. Obviously not very smooth or ideal, which is why I'm asking you guys for opinions and experiences.
This leaves me with a couple of options:
So what’s your opinion? Is this a stupid idea? Will people get confused or struggle to size bets correctly? What conversion factor would you suggest?
You might ask: 'why buy a cash set at all if you need conversion, just play with the tourney set'. I've thought about that too, but IMO cash games require a different chip structure.
As mentioned above, only three denominations are required, but in much larger quantities, since blinds don’t increase and players need many low and mid-value chips.
So yes, these were probably way too many thoughts (yes I’m an overthinker). So thanks for your patience and reading this wall of text. Sorry for all grammer mistakes, I've read this 10 times and now I am done. I really appreciate any comment and advice and your collective wisdom.
Initial situation and stakes
I want to host a single table for up to 10 people. My friends and I are in our late twenties, and some have just finished studying, so we don’t have much money. For us it’s mainly about the fun and the company rather than winning money. So we might play casually for 5€ to 10€. With 20€ or 25€ being really the absolute maximum for an evening. Anything above would make players feel bad about losing and going home with nothing. Although losing everything might be less likely in a cash game than in a tournament, 10€ as an initial buy-In should just be about right. Players who feel comfortable can then put more into it with the option to rebuy. However, the set I want to buy should also allow me to go higher in the future, maybe up to a maximum of 50€. (I’ll use $ from now on, since it’s easier for the American community here, and the chips will have $ signs anyway.)My general knowledge so far
So from what I understand, you play a cash game typically with a max buy-in of 100xBig Blind. This is often considered better than 200BB, especially for new players, since deeper stacks lead to larger swings and require more skill (they give stronger players more betting options). Many casinos also use a 150BB max (for example, a $300 max buy-in at a $1/$2 game). The minimum buy-in is typically around 40–50BB.For denominations, 3 are usually totally sufficient, as long as they have a 4-5x ratio between them.
- Smallest denomination is for posting blinds
- middle denom is the main workhorse for bets and raises
- high denom chip is used as a store of value and only for large bets
- fourth one is typically not needed, or one barrel is enough
Furthermore, I often see people suggesting only 100 of the smallest denomination (e.g., nickels). That might be correct in theory or at more advanced tables, where players rarely just call the BB and instead fold or raise using the next denomination. In those environments, the smallest chip is mainly for posting blinds, so 100x is enough. But in my amateur games I’ve observed the opposite: players limp or min-raise very often, which uses the smallest denomination. Constant limping means you either need more small chips or accept lots of change-making at the table. So I’d suggest going with 200x.
My problem
So considering my stakes above with probably a $10 max buy-in, I should go for a $0.05/$0.10 cash game. This comes with a few drawbacks for me. First, I’d need a chip set with nickels. I’m currently looking for a Paulson cash set, and obviously $0.05 chips rarely exist in real casino chips. If I can’t find the right Paulson set, I might go for CC set (e.g., the Pharaoh’s, whose design I really like), which often includes $0.05 chips. But sometimes I don’t like the look of that particular chip. And yes, a custom set is an option, but I just don’t feel like going custom. It’s not my thing and I like to get stuff that already exists.I could instead run $0.25/$0.25 using $0.25, $1 and $5 chips (Paulson sets often include quarters). But I prefer the big blind to be double the small blind for simplicity (and I’d need to read more about how SB=BB affects play). Also, a $25 max buy-in (100BB) is already the upper comfort limit for everyone, so there would likely be no rebuys. I can imagine this reduces the number of exciting all-in situations, because with $5 or $10 buy-ins, people might rebuy and create more action, but my friends definitely won’t rebuy if they’re already in for $25
The most common home cash game is probably $0.25/$0.50, but realistically none of my friends will bring $50 or risk losing that much. Or they will never join a poker game again. Maybe in 10 years, but not for now.
My second concern: I'd like to mimick a casino feeling, where you typically play with the 1s, 5s and 25s. Those redbirds ($5s) just look so lovely most of the time *_* so I'd like to use them in play. This would also suit a Paulson set, since distributions like 200×$1, 200×$5, 80×$25, 20×$100 are common (or atleast I've seen a few like this or 100x/300x/80x/20x).
The idea/solution?
In a Cash Game, the value written on the chips is usually supposed to represent the real money 1:1. That makes bet sizing intuitive, since chips are exchanged directly for cash (unlike tournaments with a payout structure, where it is just about the place you achieve). I already accept that the currency symbol will be “wrong” anyway ($ instead of €), so realism isn’t perfect to begin with + its a bit more authentic.But unless I use a $0.05 base chip for my set and the game, a 1:1 ratio will always be too high for my stakes. So I’m considering introducing a conversion factor. Obviously not very smooth or ideal, which is why I'm asking you guys for opinions and experiences.
This leaves me with a couple of options:
- I could introduce a conversion factor of 1:10, so $0.1=$1 in chips
- This would allow to run a "more casino-like" $1/$2 cash game with the $1, $5 and $25 chips and a max buy-in of 100*$0.2 = $20
- or a $0.5/$1 game with $0.25, $1 and $25 chips with a max buy-in of $10
- or even a $0.25/$0.5 game with the same chips but a max buy-in of $5
- I could go for 1:100, treating each $1 as $0.01. This simplifies calculation because it is easy to think of chips as cents, but is probably too small even for us
- $1/$2 game with max buy-in of 100x$0.02 = $2
- or a $2/$5 game, with max buy-in of $5
- I could go for 1:5 for more mental math, but would allow for
- $0.25/$0.5 game using the $0.25, $1 and $5 chips and a max buy-in of $10
- Finally, I could go for 1:20, which is again slightly awkward math (since $1=$0.2 in chips), but allows:
- $1/$2 game with the "casino like" $1s, $5s and $25 chips and a max buy-in of $10
So what’s your opinion? Is this a stupid idea? Will people get confused or struggle to size bets correctly? What conversion factor would you suggest?
You might ask: 'why buy a cash set at all if you need conversion, just play with the tourney set'. I've thought about that too, but IMO cash games require a different chip structure.
As mentioned above, only three denominations are required, but in much larger quantities, since blinds don’t increase and players need many low and mid-value chips.
So yes, these were probably way too many thoughts (yes I’m an overthinker). So thanks for your patience and reading this wall of text. Sorry for all grammer mistakes, I've read this 10 times and now I am done. I really appreciate any comment and advice and your collective wisdom.
Last edited:
I saw the bolding all over the place and it make me jump right to gpt-izing
