Cash Game New Member's Optimal Chip Break Down (3 Viewers)

[springbox]

While I understand the meaning of Buy-ins, it's something I haven't researched, yet, in how that mechanic works in a £10 cash game. I fully admit I should do this before ordering any chips (!!!) so that may well be tonight's exercise. When people can do it. How they re-buy in to the game. I'm sure all that is on this forum somewhere.

Trying to put you in the shoes of my neighbours - as said this is a social affair as none of us play poker - I reckon the odd person(s) after the big blind will limp in with 10c, hoping for the blinds to call. And I think that'll happen A LOT at the beginning. Hence why I'm leaning toward more chips is MOAR as they will feel they can stick in the game for a bit. I want it to be fun over anything else. I want them to come back and play again!

So I get you - I really do - but I wonder if your friends are pretty damned good and know how to play, and don't mind looking down at only 18 chips in their stack, .whereas my neighbours would be "Is that all I get for ten bloody quid?"

I'm going to learn a LOT after the first poker night, that's for sure. I can't really visualise how things will go. Cue me coming back here in a few months apologising to you! But I'll bear what you said in mind for the second or third game if our limp-fest turns into one game being two hours+ long.

For a cash game, typically you set a minimum and maximum buy-in amount. At any time between hands if a player's stack is below the maximum they can purchase more chips up to the maximum. This is most commonly when you go bust, but if you're sitting on $2.15 after losing a hand you might wanna just get back to $10 instead of playing a tiny stack.

I try to hand out all the small denomination chips with peoples initial buy-ins, and then when people want to top up or rebuy give them $1s or $5s and have them make change with other players.

 

[Tarsus4]

This is a really helpful thread.

I've got a group that plays .25/.50 max-$60 buy-in, and we play with a set of 500 super-diamonds I've had since college. Looking at upgrading to something like the following in hybrid Tina's:

150x $.25
225x $1
200x $5
100x $25
25x $100
700 chips

I've seen the other messages on this but can someone check my reasoning on those specific counts? (1) at 12/17, the .25s and 1s run out at roughly the same time (12 players). You can also do 10x 12/22 for everyone to feel big-stacked or 17x 8/13 to run two almost-full tables. (2) The set comfortably grows to $1/$2 $300 buy-ins (20/16/8 $1/$5/$25) so it's relatively inflation-proof for a while. (3) There's a full rack of most of the denoms (esp the 25s) for convenience and resale, and only one multi-denom rack.

The only thing that seems may be a pain with this is multi-table tourneys, which is a far-off dream for me anyway.

 

[Tarsus4]

150x $.25
225x $1
200x $5
100x $25
25x $100
700 chips

I've seen the other messages on this but can someone check my reasoning on those specific counts? (1) at 12/17, the .25s and 1s run out at roughly the same time (12 players). You can also do 10x 12/22 for everyone to feel big-stacked or 17x 8/13 to run two almost-full tables. (2) The set comfortably grows to $1/$2 $300 buy-ins (20/16/8 $1/$5/$25) so it's relatively inflation-proof for a while. (3) There's a full rack of most of the denoms (esp the 25s) for convenience and resale, and only one multi-denom rack.

I'm finalizing my denoms for an order of the Dunes of Arrakis set, and because it has a .05 chip I'll never use, I thought about upgrading them to 0.50s, rounding the set to an even 800:

150x 25c
100x 50c
225x $1
200x $5
100x $25
25x $100

Downsides:
1) Wasting chips on fracs
2) Thin on $5s for $1/2 (I currently play 0.25/0.50, so that's a long ways off)

Upsides:
1) Another denom makes the set display nicely =) Aesthetics aren't awful for 0.50/1 either.
2) I can keep the .50s away for a single table of 0.25/0.50, but add them in to make fuller stacks for two tables.
3) It enables a 20 player T0.25 tournament (6/5/11/7/2 = T$100), with 40 rebuys and exactly enough 5s left for color-ups. I really like this!
4) You could even stretch to 25x 4/4/7/8/2 = T$100, which is an awkward amount of 1s to spread across three tables, but you could do it.

I want a third rack of 5s but I'm not going to 900 chips. So the other options I have are cut the .25s back to 125 (fine, but would rule out 16x starting stack for the stakes I play the most today) and/or cut back on $25s (making $1/2 VERY thin) or the $100s (sooo pretty). I just don't see 25 or 50 more $5s making a big enough difference to compromise on the others. Anyone think otherwise?

 

[Kam]

I wouldn’t get a rack of 0.5c, I’d switch that to a rack of $5.

If you’re looking to have a set to cover up to a cash $1/$2 game, your total bank of chips should be around Big Blind x 5000 minimum, so $2 x 5000 =$10,000. This allows for 2-3 rebuys at 200 BB buy in.

You’re light with your breakdown as is though, ~ $6k ish.

Most folk recommend not mixing cash and tournament sets, but your call.

GL!

 

[Tarsus4]

I wouldn’t get a rack of 0.5c, I’d switch that to a rack of $5.

If you’re looking to have a set to cover up to a cash $1/$2 game, your total bank of chips should be around Big Blind x 5000 minimum, so $2 x 5000 =$10,000. This allows for 2-3 rebuys at 200 BB buy in.

You’re light with your breakdown as is though, ~ $6k ish.

Most folk recommend not mixing cash and tournament sets, but your call.

GL!

I hear you. My only concern is if I'm not running tournaments or $1/2, why do I even need the third rack of $5s? It lets you play with enormous stacks at $1/1, maybe?

The main reason I'm looking at the 0.50s is it gives me options to go wider, to issue 20 very playable starting stacks for a variety of stakes. If I'm not going past a full table, then even at $1/1, 20/16/x ($1/5/25) works just fine, doesn't it? Then you have two full barrels left of $5s and $25s for rebuys. Would a third rack get play?

Maybe it's a style choice to use the 5s over 25s, but it's one I haven't experienced yet since I don't play those stakes. I'd be eager to hear about it.

 

[Kam]

I hear you. My only concern is if I'm not running tournaments or $1/2, why do I even need the third rack of $5s? It lets you play with enormous stacks at $1/1, maybe?

The main reason I'm looking at the 0.50s is it gives me options to go wider, to issue 20 very playable starting stacks for a variety of stakes. If I'm not going past a full table, then even at $1/1, 20/16/x ($1/5/25) works just fine, doesn't it? Then you have two full barrels left of $5s and $25s for rebuys. Would a third rack get play?

Maybe it's a style choice to use the 5s over 25s, but it's one I haven't experienced yet since I don't play those stakes. I'd be eager to hear about it.

I think from reading the other thoughts and experience here, you don’t *need* a 3rd rack of 5s, but a 3rd gives some more flexibility. Anything above 3 racks and the efficiency police come out and it’s just personal preference.

Style wise, I prefer lots of barrels & stacks of $5 in play vs efficient with $25s.

For a $0.5/$1 $200 buy in, I issue each player 35x 5s. With a full ring of around 9 players, I’m handing out 315x $5s at the start of the game. For rebuys I’ll hand out a barrel or two of $5s until I have ~4/5 racks out there, then I’ll start with the $25s.

You could reduce this of course and issue a mix of $5/$25, especially at $1/$2 it’d be mainly $5 & $25.

If you’re ordering Tinas, the benefit is that you can always do an add on order in the future - it’s not a 1 time deal. Maybe start with what you want and see how it plays out.

GL!

 

[Tarsus4]

I think from reading the other thoughts and experience here, you don’t *need* a 3rd rack of 5s, but a 3rd gives some more flexibility. Anything above 3 racks and the efficiency police come out and it’s just personal preference.

Style wise, I prefer lots of barrels & stacks of $5 in play vs efficient with $25s.

I played with a $100 starting stack using your distribution and one thing I don't think occurred to me before was how unintuitive making bets with a 25 is. For example: I want to bet $40, and what I'm instinctively doing is grabbing a handful of 5s and counting out "10.. 20.. 30.. 40" before pushing it in. I'm not grabbing a 25 and three 5s even though that's more efficient; it's just not how my brain wants to do math. Contrarily if I'm going to bet $8, I have no problem tossing in a 5 and three 1s, that's a lot easier.

I think I'm on team "lots of fives".