Making your own inlay stickers (1 Viewer)

[JustinInMN]

Relative newbie and coming here just to share the cheapo method I used on my first set. Found very cheap Claysmiths online, and had 1" vinyl stickers printed up at Online Labels. The chips were cheap as hell, and having the "inlays" printed up on weatherproof PET cost total just over 10¢ a chip, shipping and everything considered.

Obviously I'd expect most people here at PCF to be able to identify off the bat that they're not proper inlays, but they didn't affect stackability at all and seem to be really durable. Not trying to take away from any of the hardworking vendors here, I just feel it's a decent option for people who know what they want printed and are looking to really skimp and save!

On the original Free River Club Set, I did use vinyl label stock from OnlineLabels.com. It actually worked out pretty well, but I think the other issue with home printing aside from ink costs is home printer tolerances just aren't there unless you have a very forgiving design. For most home printing no one would ever notice an eight-inch here or there as paper moves through the printer, when you are trying to hit a 1" target, that 12% shift becomes very noticable, to the point I had to hand punch 1600 labels to complete the set. At least I was using a laser printer where the price per page is actually much lower than inkjet, I never would have tried this on an inkjet printer.

The long version of this is in this thread here.

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/thre...d-perils-of-cheap-chipping.29479/#post-546125

Some labels did get scuffed, but it does take a pretty deliberate fingernail to do it.

But @StatTracker should be getting these chips today .

 

[RudysNYC]

On the original Free River Club Set, I did use vinyl label stock from OnlineLabels.com. It actually worked out pretty well, but I think the other issue with home printing is home printer tolerances just aren't there unless you have a very forgiving design. For most home printing no one would ever notice an eight-inch here or there as paper moves through the printer, when you are trying to hit a 1" target, that 12% shift becomes very noticable, to the point I had to hand punch 1600 labels to complete the set.

The long version of this is in this thread here.

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/thre...d-perils-of-cheap-chipping.29479/#post-546125

Some labels did get scuffed, but it does take a pretty deliberate fingernail to do it.

But @StatTracker should be getting these chips today .

Yea that's why I had them print em up for me in sheets. I remembered the nightmare that was printing stickers a few years ago, decided to skip the agita.

 

[Ghost269]

On the original Free River Club Set, I did use vinyl label stock from OnlineLabels.com. It actually worked out pretty well, but I think the other issue with home printing aside from ink costs is home printer tolerances just aren't there unless you have a very forgiving design. For most home printing no one would ever notice an eight-inch here or there as paper moves through the printer, when you are trying to hit a 1" target, that 12% shift becomes very noticable, to the point I had to hand punch 1600 labels to complete the set. At least I was using a laser printer where the price per page is actually much lower than inkjet, I never would have tried this on an inkjet printer.

The long version of this is in this thread here.

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/thre...d-perils-of-cheap-chipping.29479/#post-546125

Some labels did get scuffed, but it does take a pretty deliberate fingernail to do it.

But @StatTracker should be getting these chips today .

Did you see a need to clean the chips before applying a label? Also, did you print the labels or did you go to kinko's or the like to print. I would like to think that their machines would be more accurate, and for $1 per color sheet (48 labels per page) I think it would give a better alignment. Also I plan to have a print on plain paper to verify alignment before printing on the vinyl labels I ordered. Thanks for the assistance.

 

[zo121179]

High end chips, however, deserve high end labels.

Totally agree here.

 

[JustinInMN]

Did you see a need to clean the chips before applying a label? Also, did you print the labels or did you go to kinko's or the like to print. I would like to think that their machines would be more accurate, and for $1 per color sheet (48 labels per page) I think it would give a better alignment. Also I plan to have a print on plain paper to verify alignment before printing on the vinyl labels I ordered. Thanks for the assistance.

I didn't actually clean them, but these chips were brand new and ABS plastic, so I didn't worry about dirt attracting. They got their labels very shortly after being opened.

With compression clay that I think can attract more dust, maybe that's something to consider.

 

[JRReynolds6181]

More isn't always better.

.... does not compute....

 

[ekricket]

P.S.: The punches do get dull pretty fast. They aren’t terribly expensive, so I bought two. @allforcharity I think gave me the tip that punching tin foil helps sharpen the punch. I’ve tried it, but can’t say for sure if it helps. Hasn’t seemed to hurt.

Sandpaper work better, like a fine grit

 

[Taghkanic]

Using chips that are 2x the previous denomination is very inefficient (on multiple levels) and a huge waste of money on chips that aren't only not needed, but generally make the game play worse. Fact, not opinion or preference.

Then why does pretty much every tourney set include both 500s and 1Ks? Or does this rule only apply to cash?

If the non-2x rule is absolute, wouldn’t the standard T100 progression be:

100
500
2,500
10,000
50,000
250,000

Rather than
100
500
1,000
5,000
25,000
100,000

And then there is the oddity of T25 sets progressing 4x / 5x / 2x / 5x etc.

I assume this has something to do with the relation to blind structures, with change/starting stacks as additional factors.

But if 5x were always the most efficient jump in denoms, why not use 20s as the smallest chips and 100s as the next in tourneys?

I suspect the answer has to do not just with multiplying from the next lowest chip, but also the relation to the next lowest *two* chips (which are likely to frequently be in play together).

 

[JustinInMN]

Then why does pretty much every tourney set include both 500s and 1Ks? Or does this rule only apply to cash?

I do think the rule mainly applies to cash. The difference being stakes do not progress in a cash game, meaning chips never change.

Personally I think the better way to state the 2x rule is to avoid CONSECTUIVE 2x jumps in denominations. This leaves room for an occasional 2x denomination jump if it serves the purpose of using logical numbers.

To illustrate what should be a pretty obvious cash example, take 0.50-1 NLHE. It would be absurd to suggest quarters are necessary just for the sake of the 4x rule when neither blind requires the precision of a quarter. But using 0.50 chips in a game that requires quarters and singles would be inefficient. the alternative would be playing with halves and twos, and I imagine the overwhelming player preference would be to stick with halves, singles, and fives.
(And another common alternative is to just set both blinds at 1-1 instead of 0.50-1)

But avoiding CONSECUTIVE 2x jumps fits the general advice of avoiding 0.25-0.50-1 chips in play at the same time. Or in tournaments, avoid breakdowns using T5-10-25, or T25-50-100 at the same time.

Fewer denominations in cash are always better, 2-3 are preferable. 4 is tolerable to include a high value chip. But in no limit play, it's the number of denominations moreso than that the number of actual chips that determine how long it takes to count a stack.

In tournaments, stakes progress so it is really difficult to design a tournament with just 3 denominations in play. (Though when I first started hosting games in college, I did T10Ks with 20-20-15 of T25-100-500 chips ). You can probably design tournaments to keep denominations to only 4 in play.

If the non-2x rule is absolute, wouldn’t the standard T100 progression be:

100
500
2,500
10,000
50,000
250,000

PCF has spilled a lot of digital ink on the viability of the T2000 or T2500. @BGinGA has even concluded that there is a point where the 500-1000 tournament progression still makes sense in smaller scale events.

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/2000-tournament-chip.51007/#post-961575

The one upside to the 2x jump is you really do not need to include high quantities of the lower chip in the set so some "efficiency" is realized that way. Also making change in a pot for chips with a 2x jump is that it is always a super easy matter of swapping one chip for another.

More in depth links on the post I linked above as well.

 

[Taghkanic]

I do think the rule mainly applies to cash. The difference being stakes do not progress in a cash game, meaning chips never change.

Personally I think the better way to state the 2x rule is to avoid CONSECTUIVE 2x jumps in denominations. This leaves room for an occasional 2x denomination jump if it serves the purpose of using logical numbers.

To illustrate what should be a pretty obvious cash example, take 0.50-1 NLHE. It would be absurd to suggest quarters are necessary just for the sake of the 4x rule when neither blind requires the precision of a quarter. But using 0.50 chips in a game that requires quarters and singles would be inefficient. the alternative would be playing with halves and twos, and I imagine the overwhelming player preference would be to stick with halves, singles, and fives.
(And another common alternative is to just set both blinds at 1-1 instead of 0.50-1)

But avoiding CONSECUTIVE 2x jumps fits the general advice of avoiding 0.25-0.50-1 chips in play at the same time. Or in tournaments, avoid breakdowns using T5-10-25, or T25-50-100 at the same time.

Fewer denominations in cash are always better, 2-3 are preferable. 4 is tolerable to include a high value chip. But in no limit play, it's the number of denominations moreso than that the number of actual chips that determine how long it takes to count a stack.

In tournaments, stakes progress so it is really difficult to design a tournament with just 3 denominations in play. (Though when I first started hosting games in college, I did T10Ks with 20-20-15 of T25-100-500 chips ). You can probably design tournaments to keep denominations to only 4 in play.


PCF has spilled a lot of digital ink on the viability of the T2000 or T2500. @BGinGA has even concluded that there is a point where the 500-1000 tournament progression still makes sense in smaller scale events.

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/2000-tournament-chip.51007/#post-961575

The one upside to the 2x jump is you really do not need to include high quantities of the lower chip in the set so some "efficiency" is realized that way. Also making change in a pot for chips with a 2x jump is that it is always a super easy matter of swapping one chip for another.

More in depth links on the post I linked above as well.

I don’t disagree with any of that... Thanks for taking the time.

FWIW, for my own cash game, I sometimes use both 1s and 2s because:

(a) We sometimes transition from 1/2 to 2/5 later in the night;

(b) We sometimes play rotations of 1/2 Hold ’em and 2/4 or 2/5 PLO-PLO8;

(c) More colors mean more fun.

But as a practical matter, most of the time I don’t need more than 1s/5s/25s. (I also have 100s and 500s, just because you never know when we might play for 72 hours, sleeping on couches and ordering in sandwiches, right?)

I also like to have a lot of flexibility in a set. For example, for a spotted THC cash set I’m getting ready to mill/inlay replace, I’ll be making fracs, 1s, 2s, 5s, 25s, 100s, and 500s. It will be rare for more than 3-4 of these to be in play at the same time. But it is nice for futureproofing the set to have all those options, for different stakes and games.

Also, I guess just in general, I’m much less concerned than some with trying to whittle my sets down to the absolute bare minimum number of chips I can get away with. When hosting both cash and tourneys, I like to have some breathing space, and not be worried that I’m going to run out of any denom for making change, bringing a rebuy to the table, etc. There’s no need to be excessive, but buying 10-15% more chips than the bare minimum is not a giant hardship. We all like chips, right?

If I were on a super-tight budget, I would feel differently. But 95% of posters here seem to fall into the MOAR demographic, as far as chip counts and budgeting go...

 

[JustinInMN]

Also, I guess just in general, I’m much less concerned than some in trying to whittle my sets down to the absolute bare minimum number of chips I can get away with. When hosting both cash and tourneys, I like to have some breathing space, and not be worried that I’m going to run out of any denom for making change, bringing a rebuy to the table, etc. There’s no need to be excessive, but buying 10-15% more chips than the bare minimum is not a giant hardship. We all like chips, right?

I agree with this as well. My set has 2000 chips and as a result I almost NEVER put denoms higher than 5 on the table. For 0.50-1 I usually put out 60*0.50, 140*1, 200*5 to start (150 max) and all rebuys and add-ons are in fives after that. (I have 550 fives in my set and they are never exhausted.)

 

[JustinInMN]

(c) More colors mean more fun.

This is the only part I disagree with because more colors are a liability when counting stacks. The proper way to count a stack is to sum each denomination separately and add them up. The more denominations, the more numbers need to be mentally stored. The older we get, the tougher this gets .

 

[CrazyEddie]

The high-stakes games on Hustler Live seem to do pretty well with 100 / 500 / 1000 / 5000 just in terms of playability. "Efficiency" i.e. being able to cover the players' stacks with a minimum investment in chips is obviously not a concern for them.

 

[Taghkanic]

This is the only part I disagree with because more colors are a liability when counting stacks. The proper way to count a stack is to sum each denomination separately and add them up. The more denominations, the more numbers need to be mentally stored. The older we get, the tougher this gets .

When I do have $2 chips available in a 1/2 game, as a practical matter it doesn’t lead to much excessive mixing of stacks at the end. If anything, it leads to the small blind more frequently putting out $2, and leaving it there if it limps around to them (which happens much too often than it should). If it’s raised, they are usually pulling back their $2 chip, or getting change on the rare cases when the the SB folds.

I suppose the one arguably “bad” effect is that this leads to less precise betting, as people are less likely to use the $1 chips. But at 1/2, I’d say that by far the most common open sizes are $7, $10, $12, or $15. And most big pots consists 80-90% of $5s either way. (My preferred cash set includes 500 $5s, like yours, as it’s the most useful chip by far. Which reminds me, I need to clean those 5s...)

 

[Poker Zombie]

When I do have $2 chips available in a 1/2 game, as a practical matter it doesn’t lead to much excessive mixing of stacks at the end. If anything, it leads to the small blind more frequently putting out $2, and leaving it there if it limps around to them (which happens much too often than it should). If it’s raised, they are usually pulling back their $2 chip, or getting change on the rare cases when the the SB folds.

I suppose the one arguably “bad” effect is that this leads to less precise betting, as people are less likely to use the $1 chips. But at 1/2, I’d say that by far the most common open sizes are $7, $10, $12, or $15. And most big pots consists 80-90% of $5s either way. (My preferred cash set includes 500 $5s, like yours, as it’s the most useful chip by far. Which reminds me, I need to clean those 5s...)

So basically, although there is no logical reason for the $2 chip, you have an aesthetic preference. Nothing wrong with that, just not something I would recommend.

 

[Taghkanic]

So basically, although there is no logical reason for the $2 chip, you have an aesthetic preference. Nothing wrong with that, just not something I would recommend.

No, I was implying that it’s both aesthetic, and has some practical benefits.

It also does not really affect pot counts (as long as the chip colors/spots are distinct) for the reason stated above. You’re just going to see fewer preflop bets in amounts like $6, $8, $11, or others which involve combinations of $5 and $1 chips. Postflop, most bets/calls/raises at 1/2 are made with multiples of $5 either way, at least with my crew.

 

[Poker Zombie]

So you are saying that the game is better because you get more $6 and $8 bets instead of $7 bets?

It still doesn't seem to have logical reasoning, just aesthetic. I am open to being convinced otherwise, but I just seem to be missing your point.

 

[Taghkanic]

So you are saying that the game is better because you get more $6 and $8 bets instead of $7 bets?

Nope, I didn’t say it was better. The sentence about practical benefit was separate.

Ragher, I then noted that certain bet sizes would be more likely than others, but that would not make for more complicated pots as (strangely) claimed. The difference between $6 or $8 vs $7 is trivial for the reason stated.

So yes, you are misunderstanding.

The practical benefits include (a) a set can have fewer 1s; and (b) when people limp, they can use a single chip, and not have to either use two ones or make change.

A 1/2 cash set could actually include very, very few $1s, in favor of $2s, if the $1s are seldom used for anything but antes (and I suppose for tipping, if you have a paid dealer).

As noted already… In my 1/2 game, which plays more like 2/5 in many ways, there are very few bets postflop that involve 1s.

 

[Poker Zombie]

The practical benefits include (a) a set can have fewer 1s; and (b) when people limp, they can use a single chip, and not have to either use two ones or make change.

So... fewer chips?

Too bad too, because I still need a use for 3 racks of these...

...but fewer chips on the table doesn't sell me on the idea. I guess I just need 17 more racks so I can use them for limit.

 

[Taghkanic]

So... fewer chips?
View attachment 804379

Too bad too, because I still need a use for 3 racks of these...
View attachment 804381

...but fewer chips on the table doesn't sell me on the idea. I guess I just need 17 more racks so I can use them for limit.

Fewer 1s. More 2s.

Again, in my game the main chip in play is the $5. I have 500 of them and we usually get them all out on a 7-9 handed table.