Noob question - Tourney vs cash set (1 Viewer)

[katmike]

So what is the difference? Fairly new here and the answer is not jumping out at me.

A link is fine, I'm just trying to get comfortable with some of the terminology.

 

[200 Motels]

A cash game is where players buy in for a dollar amount and receive that dollar amount in chips. (eg $50 gets you $50 in chips). Cash games you can rebuy and cash out whenever you like. - A set of chips suitable for a cash game would be 50 - 100x the normal buyin to allow for multiple rebuys. For a $50 cash game, the blinds would be likely $0.25/$0.50 and they would stay that unless everyone agreed to increase.

You would need something like 100x $0.25 chips, 200x $1 chips, 200x $5 chips, and 200x $25 chips.

A tournament, everyone buys in for the same amount and received the same amount of chips. The chip values are not representative of the dollar amount that you've bought in for. (Eg. everyone buys in for $100 and gets "$"50,000 in no cash value chips. Typically referred to as T50,000 instead $. The blinds increase gradually on a predetermined schedule. (Eg every 30 min)

A tournament set could be any denomination but lets say 10 players will get T50,000 each. A breakdown would be something like 100x T100, 80x T500, 100x T1000, 70x T5000. This divided by 10 (for ten players) ends up everyone having a starting stack of 10x T100, 8x T500, 10x T1000, 7x T5000. Allow a few extra higher denominations for coloring up the smaller chips during the later blind levels and you got yourself a tournament set.

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

The functional difference is that in a tournament, the blinds are always increasing, so you need a different (wider) spread of denominations whereas a cash set should hold a large number of workhorse chips and a smaller number of low and high value chips.

Aside from functionality, you'll also typically see cash sets with denominations of 25¢-$100 while a common tourney set will range 25-5000.

 

[MattyMatt]

Also, if I may;

Even apart from the people on this forum that seem to be pretty nuts in general it's not entirely uncommon to see hosts have one set for cash and one for tournaments. I don't have a lot of money but I bought two separate cheap sets. The benefit of having separate sets are:

1. You can have values printed differently on respective sets (easier for players to read & play)
2. No risk of a tournament "25" chip ending up in a cash game by mistake and thereby messing up the bank (host)

 

[Old State]

You will also hear a lot on here about the necessity of having a separate cash and tourney set of a totally different design for security reasons. That you are inviting disaster if you don’t. Here is my experience...

My original ASM custom set was purchased about 16 years ago. It was a big deal, a very long wait, and a lot of money at the time. I put together a 1000 chip set that was used for cash and tournaments. My three other friends did the same and all of us hosted cash and tournaments with the same structure. Our tournament structure started at $5-10 so we even got all the reds in play.

Our cash games were originally $2/4 limits and then $1/2NL and used whites and all those same $5 reds. $25 chips were sparsely used. I hosted an almost weekly game from 2002-2005 and then monthly or so until 2008-9. Those friends mentioned hosted games as well.

We ran seven or eight 30-35 person tournaments from 2003-2009 with over 100 people on the invite list.
Not once did we ever lose a single chip. Not once did an extra $5 or $25 ever show up in a cash game.

Now, I did buy a separate cheaper but identical set which was used for the cash games at the tournaments or if a group of busted players wanted to start a single table tournament. But that was the only time those chips were used. Understand the main set was still in play.

Two sets are nice to have but certainly not a necessity...unless you play very high stakes with thugs.

 

[MattyMatt]

Yeah, I didn't mean it was a "necessity", just the preference for many.

 

[Old State]

Yeah, I didn't mean it was a "necessity", just the preference for many.

I wasn’t referring to you. But I’m sure you will hear from some point that it is a necessity. Just remember you are on a poker chip forum and people will do anything to justify “moar” chips

 

[katmike]

Thanks for all the responses. Clears things up a bit!

 

[MykL316]

Shorter, (maybe) simpler answer is this:
A cash game set usually has smaller denoms ($.25-$25 or $100) due to the nature of the stakes most people play, and tournament sets usually have higher denoms (25-5000 or more) due to typical casino tournament structures most people follow.

 

[katmike]

I'm more of a chip collector, not a poker player. I found this forum and find the chip collecting aspects quite interesting. My lack of poker know-how is why some of that terminology escapes me. Thanks.

 

[Taghkanic]

You will also hear a lot on here about the necessity of having a separate cash and tourney set of a totally different design for security reasons.

Well, I have two sets because I often have two games going on at once: The final table of a tourney, and a cash game that has begun with players who busted out of that (two-table) tourney.

 

[Taghkanic]

For a $50 cash game, the blinds would be likely $0.25/$0.50 and they would stay that unless everyone agreed to increase.

You would need something like 100x $0.25 chips, 200x $1 chips, 200x $5 chips, and 200x $25 chips.

The 200 $25s seem a bit unnecessary, unless you’re really expecting stakes to increase, or you have an incredibly loose .25/.50 game... If the stakes stay there, even just 4-5 barrels should suffice, I’d think.

 

[Kid_Eastwood]

The 200 $25s seem a bit unnecessary, unless you’re really expecting stakes to increase, or you have an incredibly loose .25/.50 game... If the stakes stay there, even just 4-5 barrels should suffice, I’d think.

Indeed. For a full ring game .25 - .5 with max buyin of 50, I think a rack of $25 is enough.

I've never run short of $25 with a 100/200/200/100 breakdown.

 

[200 Motels]

I think I meant 100x $25.

 

[Sparty]

I think I meant 100x $25.

..but moar is better!!

 

[Frogzilla]

Two sets are nice to have but certainly not a necessity...unless you play very high stakes with thugs.

There are also unintentional ways that affect all games. Tourney chip ends up on floor, isn’t seen until cash. Or gets stuck/hidden under the rail, in a cup holder, etc.

 

[Old State]

Well, I have two sets because I often have two games going on at once: The final table of a tourney, and a cash game that has begun with players who busted out of that (two-table) tourney.

I mentioned I did that as well. I bought a set of cheap slugged chips back when that was the second best chip you could buy next to ASMs. That’s what people used for cash during a tourney. Then got some solid ASMs but never really used them.

There are also unintentional ways that affect all games. Tourney chip ends up on floor, isn’t seen until cash. Or gets stuck/hidden under the rail, in a cup holder, etc.

Never once had that happen. One could imagine all types of scenerios I guess but I’m going on my actual experience. We also created a tournament structure that allowed for starting stacks of 20. The stacks always fit in racks so it was very easy to see missing chips when collecting the chips at the end or during color up. That plus coloring up after every three rounds probably helps too.

The point is I don’t think it’s the best advise to someone that is on a budget and wants to get their first custom set..or nice expensive set. I can understand the “nice to have” argument but experience has shown me the “must have for security” argument is unconvincing.

 

[MattyMatt]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that it is a "must have".

When it comes to advising someone who's on a budget - which the OP didn't state he was and nobody advised anyway - I think the consideration really should be what the goals are and what the budget is and what the preferences are. It's absolutely fine, in my opinion, to advise someone on a budget to get two sets. At that point it really comes down to just looking at what the needs are for either setup, looking at the options on the market, and then just making an informed choice. My two sets are the old Chinese "Faux Clay" for cash and "Roman Times" for tourneys. My friend has much nicer sets. Another couple of friends have worse sets. Nobody has ever complained about chips during our games. So to me it's just one less concern when I host even if it's just mental.

So I think it's all about personal preferences.

 

[Taghkanic]

Never once had that happen. One could imagine all types of scenerios I guess but I’m going on my actual experience. ... I can understand the “nice to have” argument but experience has shown me the “must have for security” argument is unconvincing.

It may happen, eventually, if you keep playing long enough. It’s not that commingling is common in a friendly home game; but it would be no fun if there were a real error, at least more than a trivial one.

Anyway, convincing a community of chippers to collect the minimum number chips and sets necessary is a tall task. Most of us are looking for reasons to get MWAR not fewer.

Budget issues of course are understandable, but I moved to two sets as soon as I could. Cash and tourneys are very different games and cultures to me, and I like having the chips reflect that.

 

[Old State]

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that it is a "must have".

Wasn’t necessarily reffering to this thread, but if you search around you will see it’s often considered a “must”

It may happen, eventually, if you keep playing long enough. It’s not that commingling is common in a friendly home game; but it would be no fun if there were a real error, at least more than a trivial one.

Anyway, convincing a community of chippers to collect the minimum number chips and sets necessary is a tall task. Most of us are looking for reasons to get MWAR not fewer.

We hosted a shit ton of tournaments and cash games for 6 years with over 100 people in the pool of players. We didn’t know all of them that well but everyone was vouched for. This is a good idea for any game. Never lost a chip and never had any shenanigans.

Your point about the chip collecting community is correct.

 

[Taghkanic]

As a host with two different games often going on in my house, I mainly just find it makes things easier to have separate sets. For the tourney, I set aside in advance what I need to color up, distribute add-ons, etc., in containers to bring higher denom chips onto the table and take smaller ones off. If I am deep in the tourney, I have reliable players who will run the cash game box for me. But all in all this means there are a lot of chips moving around, and it just lessens confusion to have them be distinct (while setting a different tone in each type of game). Mistakes are very rare, but my goal as a host is to avoid ever getting into a sticky situation, however unlikely.

Anyway, if one is on a budget and upgrading from dice or other entry/mid-level chips for the first time, doesn’t this mean the host would now have two sets—the new and the old?

Considering that the old chips probably have very little resale value, if any—I can’t give away the three boxes of dice chips inherited from the previous host, no one wants them—then my suggestion is use the better set for one type of game, and the crappier one for the other, until funds allow and upgrade for both.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Saying you've never encountered a problem so you dont need 2 sets is like saying you've never had a house fire, so you don't need fire insurance.

You are right, it's not a necessity, but it is a good idea. If your funds are strapped, you can get by by just being very safe.

...and hoping lightning doesn't strike.

 

[Old State]

Saying you've never encountered a problem so you dont need 2 sets is like saying you've never had a house fire, so you don't need fire insurance.

You are right, it's not a necessity, but it is a good idea. If your funds are strapped, you can get by by just being very safe.

...and hoping lightning doesn't strike.

I’ve also never been struck by lightening and don’t spend much time worrying about it.

 

[Taghkanic]

I mean this question sincerely, Old State, with no malice... But I’m just not clear why it bugs you so much that people advocate for two sets.

It hardly seems like the most outrageous suggestion one encounters here. I am genuinely curious.

 

[Coyote]

I guess it (the uneconomical suggestion for two sets) might push newbies to despair and risk driving them away from the rabbit hole before they 're hooked.

It's best to have separate sets for cash and tourney, but in many cases you could do with just one (if you never-ever play tourney and cash simultaneously or consecutively under the same roof and always limit your games to just one table of close friends).
The single most important reason I got a tourney sub-set within my custom set has been pure aesthetic wantonness and desire for more chips.

 

[Old State]

I mean this question sincerely, Old State, with no malice... But I’m just not clear why it bugs you so much that people advocate for two sets.

It hardly seems like the most outrageous suggestion one encounters here. I am genuinely curious.

I think you are reading WAY to into my comments. I’m not against having two sets for convenience or for the hell of it. I personally own a few sets for different things as I mentioned before. I guess my original post was inspired by the commentary I’ve seen here over the past few years when thus topic comes up that it is foolish and implying cheating is inevitable if you don’t have a separate cash and tourney set of chips. Search the topic and you will see what I mean. I assumed commentary like that would soon follow based on other threads....but so far it hasn’t

If the OP wants to buy 20 sets of chips that’s great. I just would hate if he thought he had to.

 

[BGinGA]

I don't think cheating is/was implied as inevitable. Much more emphasis on "an issue developing, intentional or accidental" as being inevitable..... and totally avoidable.

 

[Taghkanic]

Yeah, I am way more concerned about preventing honest mistakes than cheating. Shit happens.

For example—an analogous but not identical situation—when I first took over hosting a game from another player, I instituted an on-time bonus to discourage late arrivals, which had become a problem at the previous venue.

In one of the early sessions, a longtime friend and regular announced about 45 minutes in that he had been on time, but he didn’t think he got his on-time bonus.

Tables had already been rebalanced once, and it would have required inventorying chips of a certain color on both tables to verify if one was missing. Not impossible to determine, but it would have been a real pain and delay.

He wasn’t happy with the decision, but I ruled that it was way too late to rectify... and that as is standard in every other game I’d ever played in, it was every player’s responsibility when they sat down to verify that they had received the correct starting stack. And that there would be a zero tolerance policy on this. I felt it was important to nip any such future claims in the bud, no matter how innocent the error.

I also now use a bonus chip of a color which would not otherwise be in play early, so that it is harder for someone to fail to notice up front (before cards were in the air) if they didn’t get theirs.

I mention it as an example in this context of how things you can’t imagine happening, or might not expect, do sometimes happen.

 

[Kid_Eastwood]

Like already said earlier:

I think the best idea is to get a nice set for your main game (the tournament or the cash game).

And if on budget, just buy something really chip (like slugged chips or even dice) for the less important format.

And then, later upgrade the second set if you want and have the budget.

This won’t prevent cheating but at least unintentional mistakes can be avoided.