Tourney Is there a benefit to 25/50 starting blinds? (1 Viewer)

[Kid_Eastwood]

A T.25-base set actually works best (T.25, T1, T5, T25) from an efficiency perspective. A T1-base set (T1, T5, T25, T100) works, but at a 5:1 replacement ratio for the lowest two denominations, is inherently less efficient (or cost effective). A T5-base (T5, T25, T100, T500) structure runs into issues once the field size reaches certain numbers, and a T25-base set has inherent problems right out of the gate.

Just for my curiosity, what issues have you observed with T5 structures ?

Personnaly I like this format:

T2000
5-10
5-15
10-20
15-30
20-40
25-50
30-60
40-80
50-100
60-120
75-150
100-200
125-250
150-300
200-400
250-500
300-600
400-800
500-1000
...

Or other variations like T1K with starting blinds 5-5.

Playing with 30’ blinds and reducing the starting stack if required to shorten tourney length.

 

[BGinGA]

Biggest problem with T5-base structures is that most players are somewhat clumsy, unfamiliar, or uncomfortabe with the betting amounts that the structure generates. Multiples of 5 (30, 35, 55, 80, etc.) seem to be much harder numbers to calculate and compile bets than are multiples of 1, 25, or 100. Once the T5 chips are removed after color-up, those issues disappear, but most T5-base structures use T5 chips for longer periods than do other structures, so the problem is compounded not only by harder betting levels, but also more of them.

 

[TexRex]

FWIW, here's what I think. Many casinos have gone to a T25 base is because when you have to buy chips for hundreds or thousands of players, the second lowest chip being 4x instead of 5x the lowest chip reduces the total number of chips you need. They also consider that the lowest chips come out of play first, so they aren't going to start with more than 10-12 each of those.

While BG is right about a T.25, at least to a point, when you adjust the 500s because the next chip up is 1000 and use fewer 500s, the T25 base may be the most efficient, though the T25 could be the most efficient depending on how many of the higher denoms you get, they are amazingly close and more efficient than any other structure from the standpoint of how many total chips you need. While he is right about the inefficient jump from 500 to 1000, most Americans are used to doing math that way, and you can adjust how many 500s you use to make up for that inefficiency.

His point about casinos trying to make it appear to give you more is a good one. I've found with players many like a bigger starting amount even though the number of big blinds might be smaller. I suspect many don't do the math to figure that out.

Casinos are not trying to have chips that are the most efficient to play, but the most efficient to manage and buy. Casinos are selling you a good experience; they are selling you a dream. I've learned not to try to duplicate their chip structures in a home game.

 

[BGinGA]

FWIW, here's what I think. Many casinos have gone to a T25 base is because when you have to buy chips for hundreds or thousands of players, the second lowest chip being 4x instead of 5x the lowest chip reduces the total number of chips you need. They also consider that the lowest chips come out of play first, so they aren't going to start with more than 10-12 each of those.

I would wager a very large amount of money that not a single casino employee anywhere has even NOTICED much less considered the 4x vs 5x jump between the lowest and second lowest denominations as having any relative value upon which to base a casino chip purchasing decision.

The second part -- fewer starting T25s required vs starting T5s -- is almost certainly the only criteria they use/used to make that decision. Why purchase 10 chips per player vs just 8 will suffice (or only 4, if necessary in a pinch)? It allows a 20% cut in the number of both low denomination chips -- T25s and T100s -- required for the set, which see the least use in an event.

 

[Wils]

It would be interesting to go from 1/2 to 25/50 starting blinds - I wonder if some people would subconsciously think "wow we're already at 25/50 and the games just begun, better play tighter/looser."

 

[Wils]

FWIW, here's what I think. Many casinos have gone to a T25 base is because when you have to buy chips for hundreds or thousands of players, the second lowest chip being 4x instead of 5x the lowest chip reduces the total number of chips you need.

If it's chip efficiency they're after, why the f*ck have 500 then a 1000, not a 2000 (or even 2,500)?

Dumbasses.

 

[BGinGA]

I have never understood the need for a $500 cash chip at all. Just color up the BJ, craps, and roulette tables with $1000s; no need for a $500 chip.

It actually does serve a purpose in tournaments, however. It's actually the T1000 chip that is logistically in error, not the T500. Tourney progression ~should~ be T500-T2000-T10,000-T50,000. It would make more sense if they used actual cash sets for tournaments, but when you're building a dedicated set, seems that the more different they would be, the better.

 

[Wils]

Indeed. That's why I was bemoaning the progression is always 500 > 1000 not 500 > 2000

You could have a 2500 chip and then all denominations are based on powers of the originals

25 > 100 > 500 > 2,500 > 10,000 > 50,000 and so on

 

[BGinGA]

Yes, but a T2500 is vastly inferior to a T2000 chip in a real-world environment.

 

[upNdown]

Yes, but a T2500 is vastly inferior to a T2000 chip in a real-world environment.

I think I can see where you’re going with that, but then why don’t people use T20’s instead of T25’s? Isn’t it the same thing?

 

[BGinGA]

Nope, but only because of the George Washington quarter thing. Quarters are ingrained into the American mind. Twenty-five-hundreds are not. Plus they are much less efficient and less flexible than T2000 chips.

 

[TexRex]

BG, I don't know how many casino employees would know, but there's a bean counter there somewhere who thought that through. I agree with the 8 or even 4 would do -- again they don't care about making it a good experience for players. They do care about making it efficient for dealers. Every minute they have any employee working on the tournament, what they make goes down. The more change-making, the fewer deals, and deals are what get players out of the game.

 

[Gregbosco1]

I love this website! Factor in antes if you want.

https://pokersoup.com/tool/blindStructureCalculator

 

[BGinGA]

I love this website! Factor in antes if you want.

https://pokersoup.com/tool/blindStructureCalculator

Sorry, but that poker soup website calculator blows chunks. Read all about it here:

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/posts/350693/

 

[Gregbosco1]

Sorry, but that poker soup website calculator blows chunks. Read all about it here:

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/posts/350693/

Hhmmm I have not had many issues with it and simply use it as a starting point. I then make adjustments as necessary. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Ken]

It would be interesting to go from 1/2 to 25/50 starting blinds - I wonder if some people would subconsciously think "wow we're already at 25/50 and the games just begun, better play tighter/looser."

We kinda did this with a regular tourney we had. This was 1999 when it started and few had played casino tourneys. We had a $100 buy-in and got T$100 in chips with 1/2 starting blinds. At some point we adjusted the buy-in for inflation to $120 and a player asked if we were going to get T$120 in chips. I explained that would be a different tourney structure (albeit small). We played T$100 that time but the next time I had acquired a new chip set and we played T$2500 (25 x 100) and 25/50 (25 x 1/2) blinds. The reason was mostly new chips and seeing how casinos ran tourneys but also so that it was different enough that the question would not come up again until we hit an inflation adjusted $2500 buy-in. Nobody batted an eye except the original asker who liked it a lot as he had played casino tourneys and this felt more "authentic".

 

[Lovejoyz]

I have never understood the need for a $500 cash chip at all. Just color up the BJ, craps, and roulette tables with $1000s; no need for a $500 chip.

It actually does serve a purpose in tournaments, however. It's actually the T1000 chip that is logistically in error, not the T500. Tourney progression ~should~ be T500-T2000-T10,000-T50,000. It would make more sense if they used actual cash sets for tournaments, but when you're building a dedicated set, seems that the more different they would be, the better.

I know this is old, but whatevs.
Security....that's about 90% of the reason.

It's much easier to steal a single $1000 chip, than it is to steal two $500 chips, and the $1000 is twice the value. On a table that is $1000 max bet, it's not uncommon for there to be no $1000 chips on the table. Sometimes they'll have 40k in $500's before they have a single $1000 chip just for security purposes.

BG, I don't know how many casino employees would know, but there's a bean counter there somewhere who thought that through. I agree with the 8 or even 4 would do -- again they don't care about making it a good experience for players. They do care about making it efficient for dealers...

This... The more efficient and convenient it is for the dealers, the less likely they are to make mistakes. When in reality, if your dealer is smooth, has good transitions, and doesn't make mistakes, that will give the players a bit more of a good experience. Players can adapt to different chip amounts, or small inefficient chip counts much easier than they can wait for a dealer to figure things out because they are using a non-universal, inconsistent procedure. If all casinos changed those procedures, it wouldn't be a big deal because the dealers would learn it across the board.

 

[TexRex]

After looking at this issue more, I’m completely revising my earlier thoughts on this. Here is what I did to test a couple of things I’ve seen.

• I measured starting chips of .25; 1; 5; 25; or 100 and total BB of 100BB, 200BB, 300BB, 400BB, and 500BB. That gave me 25 different chip configurations. I considered multiple options in each configuration. Obviously different chip configurations might alter the results, but I tried really hard to stay consistent to my "rules" to try to measure by a single standard.
• I measured each configuration twice. The first with chip values of .25; 1; 5; 25; 100; 500; 1,000; 5,000; 25,000; and 100,000; and the second with chip values of .25; 1; 5; 25; 100; 500; 2,000; 10,000; 50,000; and 250,000.

I measured for a home tournament and a casino tournament with certain assumptions.

• I assumed there would be enough chips of the next highest value to completely color up the previous valued chips with one exception. The T500 only needs half as many with this assumption since half of them could be colored up to T1000.
• For casinos I assumed they would use 8-10 of the lowest value and perhaps the lowest reasonable number of the second lowest value. Though I didn’t measure it this way, I assumed BG is correct in his statement that a big factor is getting the lowest number of the lowest 2 chip values. I’d add it might not be the raw number itself, but the lowest percentage of chips in these two values.
• For home games I assumed the objective was to provide players enough chips, but not too many. That meant 10-12 starting chips for the lowest value with each larger chip having either the same or fewer. Again, the T500 was an exception because fewer are needed since the next chip up is only 2x its value. Because of the higher number of the lowest value chips, home games are likely to buy more chips to run a better tournament. The additional number of chips is significant.
• I only measured to chips two values above the highest starting chip. This created an exception to the T500 color up. If T500 was the chip two values above the highest starting chip, I did not reduce the number of T500s.

I had some theories based on several comments that I thought this test would prove.

• A T.25 would be the most efficient overall starting chip. It makes intuitive sense because it gives you the most upward room with natural progressions of 4x or 5x.
• A T2,000 would be more efficient than a T1,000 because of the 4x instead of seemingly inefficient 2x value. It also had higher value chips that would result in needing fewer overall chips.

I was so certain these two theories were right, I would have labeled both of them as no-brainers. I hope I never said that because I was wrong on both of those issues. I take heart that I’m in some great company on these two assumptions.

I’ll start with some conclusions, and then explain how I got there.

In order, what is the most efficient starting chip -- .25; 1; 5; 25; or 100?
Casino -- 5 -- .25 – 100 – 25 -- 1
Home – 100 – 1 – 5 – 25 -- .25

I was very surprised by the results of both! For the home game, the T25 and T.25 were at the bottom and T100 at the top. For Casinos, the T5 is the most efficient. The T25 is the only one that correlates – it’s fourth most efficient for both. Yet that is probably the most common starting chips for both casinos and home games. In both, the T100 is more efficient than the T1. It's not just adding zeroes -- the T100 is more efficient than the T1. That's very surprising considering the next two jumps are 5x and 2x in the T1000, and that's the most efficient an overwhelming majority of the time.

This is another good reason why home games probably shouldn’t be too anxious to follow casino models. Doing something because casinos do it certainly doesn’t work well here.

The two most efficient starting chips in a casino are unlikely to be used by the casino. Maybe I'm wrong on that -- does anyone know of casinos that start tournaments with either T5 or T.25?

I thought the most efficient chips would be the most efficient chips. That turns out to be wrong since casinos and home players apparently buy for different reasons, and that creates different results. I never even suspected that.

So why do so many casinos start at T25? Is it because it’s the most efficient for them with 100BB and the second most efficient at 200 BB? Many years the WSOP started with 200BB at T25. Maybe as BG says, it requires the least number of the lowest value chips. Perhaps they never truly planned for deep stack events. Or maybe they found that is what attracted the most players to the game, especially if the WSOP did it. Or [insert your own theory here].

I had some theories based on several comments that I thought this test would prove, though I was wrong on those issues.

• A T.25 most efficient overall? For the home game the T.25 and T25 are the least efficient. So why do so many of us use the T25? I’m guessing most are like me – because that’s what the casinos do. Also, I seemed to be able to prove it, though I now realize with these comparisons there is no single best choice. The best choice varies with the number of starting BB.
• A T2000 more efficient than a T1000? Overall that is not correct. In the 25 home measurements, the T1000 is more efficient in twice as many scenarios as the T2000. In the 25 casino measurements, the T1,000 is more efficient in over three times as many scenarios as the T2,000. Take heart you T2000 fans (I’m not one of them, but primarily because I’m OK with tradition) – you win some of these. What I think gets overlooked is the effect of the 2x re-start resulting in needing fewer T500s, which sometimes by itself is the reason the T1000 generally makes more sense. But, if you like the T2000 better, you can certainly design your tournament as one where it is the most efficient way to do it. Proponents of both have good arguments, but the T1000 crowd has more of them.
• If you are running a home T500BB tournament and starting with T1, T5, or T25, the T2000 is for you! It’s even better for the T100BB starting with T25.
• If you are running a T300BB tournament, it’s T1000 all the way!
• See? There’s something for everyone!

I'm not sure how well the supporting information will post here.

Casino Chip Purchase
Tourney 0.25 1 5 25 100
T100 2560 3000 2,710 2548 2948
T200 2,820 2780 2,820 2,820 3500
T300 3080 3120 3022 3175 2812
T400 2940 3760 2946 3100 3016
T500 3200 3690 3210 3425 2650
T1000 -- 17 wins; T2000 -- 5 wins; 4 neutral

Home Game Chip Purchase
Tourney 0.25 1 5 25 100
T100 3,960 3,040 3,400 3,610 3,000
T200 4,220 3,280 3,720 3,900 3,500
T300 4,220 3,520 3,872 4,525 3,512
T400 4,340 4,160 3,848 4,648 3,516
T500 4,600 3,820 4,110 4,760 3,520
T1000 -- 14 wins; T2000 -- 7 wins; 4 neutral

Unfortunately, I don't now how to post the comparison between all 25 configurations where it makes any sense at all. The spreadsheet I used, and will gladly send for anyone who really wants to look at it, shows the configurations in order of efficiency for both home games and casinos. Each is coded, for example, the T100 100 means it starts with 100BB and the lowest chip value is T100.

Home
1 T100 100
2 T100 1
3 T200 1
4 T100 5
5 T200 100
6 T300 100
7 T400 100
8 T300 1
9 T500 100
10 T100 25
11 T200 5
12 T500 1
13 T400 5
14 T300 5
15 T200 25
16 T100 .25
17 T500 5
18 T400 1
19 T200 .25
20 T300 .25
21 T400 .25
22 T300 25
23 T500 .25
24 T400 25
25 T500 25

Casino
1 T100 25
2 T100 .25
3 T500 100
4 T100 5
5 T200 1
6 T300 100
7 T200 .25
8 T200 25
9 T200 5
10 T400 .25
11 T400 5
12 T100 100
13 T100 1
14 T400 100
15 T300 5
16 T300 .25
17 T400 25
18 T300 1
19 T300 25
20 T500 .25
21 T500 5
22 T500 25
23 T200 100
24 T500 1
25 T400 1

Count me as surprised. I'm not sure how this will affect my next tournament chip purchase. I'm guessing that liking the traditional chip colors, I'll use T25 again because I tend to like green.

 

[BGinGA]

I would argue that all of your 'most efficient' claims and subsequent rankings are flawed, for the simple reason of using an inefficient method of coloring up (thereby skewing the actual number if chips actually required in each set).

Makes no sense to me to try and determine a 'most efficient' set while simultaneously invoking an inefficient way to use it.

 

[TexRex]

BG, suggest a color up rule I can consistently apply, and I'll rerun it. I did point out you could change results by changing the rules.

Looking at the results, but not actually measuring, I think similar results would occur if you either colored up with the highest chip on the table and the next two highest, and if you only colored up with the chips the two higher above what's on the table. But provide the rules and I'll rerun it. Seriously, I'd like to know!

The other thing to consider is that when purchasing a set, which is what I'm really measuring, one reason for completely coloring up the lower value chips is if you do something like T25 lowest starting chip normally, but you want to do a T100 as the lowest chip.

 

[BGinGA]

My primary color-up rule is to never use/add chip denominations that will be subsequently removed from play.

Secondary rule is to ensure an adequate number of workhorse chips are available in the latter stages of the event (which is why 'always' coloring up with the largest denomination isn't necessarily best -- it is dependent upon starting stack configuration and field size).

Depending on stack size, blind structure, and field size, some denominations may or may not require removal when using any given Tx-base. For example, a 100bb T25-base 10-player event usually doesn't require the removal of T500 chips, but a 300bb (or 20+ player) event likely would.

 

[TexRex]

I used 100 players in my calculations. I figured that's more than enough to find small differences. I'm also considering buying a chip set, not just what is required for playing a tournament (which should involve fewer chips).

Altering any single issue will alter results. You are exactly right about the difference between what you remove in different structures, but efficiency I think has to be measured for the same size and type of tournament. So, I wouldn't try to compare a 100BB T25-base with 10 players to a 300BB T25-base with 20 players. The number of chips needed is quite difference, and that doesn't tell you anything about what is most efficient for a particular starting BB, T-base, and field size.

A 100BB T25-base with 100 players was compared on the basis of two issues. What is the most efficient T-base for such a tournament? Is the T1000 or T2000 chips more efficient for that particular tournament? Any other comparison is apples and oranges.

That means to run a comparison, I must have rules that can be consistently applied with the same number of players and starting BB so I can determine the most efficient T-base. Varying one of the other factors doesn't measure anything.

Now, I could easily, now that I set it up, compare a wide variety of tournaments. Regardless of how I compare them, some structures will favor a different T-base and some will favor either T1000 or T2000. There is never going to be a clear cut answer among all of them.

I like the rule about not coloring up a chip that will be subsequently removed, unless it's very small numbers. In our typical T25/400BB with up to 20 players, the most number of 100s that would be used to color up T25s would be 5 among the 20, and that would be the rare situation where there were 5 players who had 1-4 T25s, and not enough T100s to make it a T500 or T1000. If I have only 15 players, there are not enough T25s in play to color up to T5000. Now, we could make change to accomplish it by adding T100s, but the extra time it takes to do that isn't worth the effort at that level. In something like the WSOP, there is a break at the end of 2 hours where they have time to do all of that. That's not the case in a home tournament where rounds are back to back.

So let me ask:
What about only measuring the top chip in play and the next two?

 

[TexRex]

After running calculations using the top chip in play and the next two highest to do all color ups, the results were not significantly different than coloring up each chip with the next higher chip. I think the big reason for that is those tend to affect all sets more or less equally, but there are some differences.

• When it comes to the issue of the T-base, the top 7 of 25 was either the T1 or the T100. One of those two was the most efficient at every T-level for a set number of BB.
• The bottom 8 of 25 was either the T.25 or T25. Regardless of color up system, in order of efficiency if defined by the fewest chips needed to adequately run a tournament, it was:

T100
T1
T5
T25
T.25

Comparing the T1000 and T2000 in all 25 sets generated the following results:
Same -- 5
T1000 -- 12
T2000 -- 8

Overall the T1000 is more efficient. It's overall average with 100 players is just over 62 chips per set fewer chips, or about 6/10 of a chip per player. Without getting too detailed, here's the chip differences between the two:

12 "wins" 8 "wins"
T1000 T2000
18 217
352 82
97 32
28 186
254 151
237 18
510 48
8 102
38
761
10
332

Not only is the T1000 more efficient more often, but it's also more efficient by higher amounts. However, if you like the T2000, it certainly has a place and it is a good choice. It works best with T100 BB and T500 BB tournaments, but shines brightest with the T500 BB tournaments. Even at that, in the 3 situations in the T500 where it is more efficient (T1, T5, and T25), those sets require more chips on average than the 2 where the T1000 is better (T.25 and T100).

If you are looking at a set you might use in a lot of ways though, with different starting amounts, your best bet is to stick with the T1000. When you consider that the T500 is needed, but you can use fewer of them because of the T1000 being 2x, that's actually more efficient than needing more T500s because the next one up is 4x more often.

I'm still surprised at the results, but when really looking, it's easy to see why.

A casino is way more likely to simply purchase 8 per player in either T.25 or T25, while a home player is more likely to purchase 12 per player. In all others, the lowest value is going to be 10 with either. For a casino purchasing for hundreds, or thousands of players, that's a significant number of chips.

I think the T25 in home games is popular because that's what the WSOP used. It's not really the ideal choice for chip efficiency in the home game because of the need for more starting chips to have a "playable" set, which casinos don't care about as much. However, there is some value in using chips similar to what casinos use, especially if some players either also play in casinos, or you want an "authentic" feel.

For everyone, the difference between the most efficient set and least efficient set for home game use is 1,060 chips per hundred players, or less than 11 chips a player. For a casino buying thousands of chips, that a more significant difference than it is for a home game player.

For a newbie, what would I recommend?

• Use the T1000 instead of the T2000 because it has a wider variety of uses and it's hard to know what you will most likely need.
• Use T25 or T100. While the T100 is more efficient, you might want the authentic feel, so I'd be more inclined to use the T25, and you can do more things with it, even though it's not quite as efficient.

The more experienced you are, and the more you tailor a chip set to your needs, the more likely you are to go with the T2000 over the T1000. If your needs are more varied though, regardless of experience, the T1000 will have wider uses.

One thing I think could be done is creating a chip set with both and varying which you use after the T500 by the needs of a specific tournament. That would be more efficient but less fun that simply having a different chip set for each configuration. So the real answer here is ... more chips!