Playing 2/4 and 3/6 with $2 chips? (1 Viewer)

[Alex Lundstrum]

So I'm toying with the idea of buying chips to cover limit games. Would it be uber-tilting to play 2/4 or 3/6 with $2 chips (set of 1600) plus 2-300 $1 chips for odd amounts? Or should one plan to have a limit set of $1 and $2 chips (1600 of each)?

 

[ruskba]

Use $1s for 3/6 and below. Even use them for 4/8 if you can buy enough.

 

[Shaggy]

$2's are okay for 2/4... just need a half rack of $1s for small blinds. 3/6 sounds horrible.

As said above, you can play all the way up to 4/8 with $1s. 1600x $1s sounds like enough to me.

Here's something to consider. Build a NCV set that can be used as whatever chip you want. Then have a big chip that is valued at 10x (or 20x) the small chip. This will give you all the flexibility you ever need.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Use $1s for 3/6 and below. Even use them for 4/8 if you can buy enough.

+1

Yes, it would be not only tilting but a lot of unnecessary work and wasted time to play with both $1 and $2 chips at those stakes.

 

[TheBigTater]

Playing 2/4, 3/6 & 4/8 (although I would rather use $2's for 4/8) with $1's is ok but please don't try to play 2/4 or 3/6 with $2's (uber tilting).

Here's something to consider. Build a NCV set that can be used as whatever chip you want. Then have a big chip that is valued at 10x (or 20x) the small chip. This will give you all the flexibility you ever need.

^^^ This is a great idea if you're on a budget, a non denomination set works for all limits, you just need a workhorse (1/2 the small bet) and a value chip (20x the workhorse).

 

[Alex Lundstrum]

^^^ This is a great idea if you're on a budget, a non denomination set works for all limits, you just need a workhorse (1/2 the small bet) and a value chip (20x the workhorse).

If I do end up getting these, they'll be CC so budget won't be such an issue. My thought is to get a NL set and supplement with extra $1s and add $2s if I ever find the need. I am in the boat of using $2s at low limit being "Meh..." so needed the reassurance that it would be no good.

Next question: Is 1600 $1s (and 200 25¢s, 200 $20s) enough for a 4/8 game?

Edit: probs don't need the quarters for 4/8 lol

 

[TheBigTater]

Yes, 1600 x $1s and 200 x $20s should be enough for 4/8. You might run into occasional change making but you'll have plenty of value chips to make it. And you don't need quarters. You should never need more than 2 different chips for any limit game.

 

[RowdyRawhide]

I could get behind 2/4 or 4/8 with 2s but no way on 3/6. That would probably tilt the shit out of me. Preferable with 1s if limited to thouse or 2s

 

[ChaosRock]

For me, a large part of the fun of playing Limit poker is the large stacks and the number of chips in a raked pot. However, one important consideration when determining the number of chips for the limit is how well the players in a particular game manage stacks, pot, splits, etc. If not too well, and too many chips are used, the game slows down significantly.

So, my preference, for either a home game with no dealer, with experienced limit players or at a casino:

Antes (ante games) = 1 chip / player
Bring-in (Stud games) = 2 chips
Complete (Stud games) = 4 chips
Small Bet = 4 chips
Big Bet = 8 chips

For home games with no dealer with players not used to manage large stacks, I would go with:

Antes (ante games) = 2 chips / single player
Bring-in (Stud games) = 1 chip
Complete (Stud games) = 2 chips
Small Bet = 2 chips
Big Bet = 4 chips

Using only 1 chip / 2 chips for the limits takes away some of the fun imo. And creates issues with Antes, Bring-ins and Completes. Now, is it doable? Yes, it's doable. For games like $3/$6, $6/$12 or $9/$18, 3 chips / 6 chips is fine but small changes on the Antes, Bring-ins and Complete would have to be made.

Regarding the number of chips, For 2 chip / 4 chip games, at least one rack per player plus value chips. For 4 chips / 8 chips games, 2 racks per player plus value chips. For something like a 3 chip / 6 chip game, I think one can get away with one rack per player plus value chips.

If the game is Stud variants only, and that might be the only occasion, I think I'd be fine with another chip in play for Antes only if the game is 2 chips / 4 chips. That chip would be 1/4 or 1/5 chip. And again, for antes only. Not my preference, that's for sure. The only thing it avoids is the single player ante, which is not an issue imo.

 

[moose]

1600 $1 is fine for a $4/8 limit game. We play $3/6 with a 1/2 kill to $4/8 with 1500 $1s.

 

[pltrgyst]

I like $2s for 2/4 and $3s for 3/6, rather than all $1s, but I’m definitely in the minority.

That said, for a limit game played at $1 per chip, all you really need is enough chips. They don’t have to be the same denom, casino, manufacturer, or even the same color, you just need enough chips.

I once held a 1/2 limit game using all black $100 chips, and it worked fine. (I love black chips, black cars, black coffee...) I did have $100 plaques in reserve, but they weren’t needed.

 

[abby99]

Using a dealer (button) ante eliminates the need for an ante denomination in stud games. This works well:

Button ante = 2 chips
Bring-in = 1 chip
Small blind = 2 chips
Big blind = 4 chips

If 3/6 can't be played with all $1s, I'd rather play with ones and fives than with ones and twos.

IME, many players think of betting in terms of units or chips, not dollars. Bet, 2 bets, 3 bets, cap.

 

[Jimulacrum]

IME, many players think of betting in terms of units or chips, not dollars. Bet, 2 bets, 3 bets, cap.

Yup. This is best exemplified by pink-chip games. People pretty quickly stop trying to figure out what $2.50 times whatever is, and instead say "3 (small or big) bets."

I recently saw this in full force in a pink-chip limit game ($2.50/5) where we decided to play one round of pink-chip Double Board PLO before clearing the pink chips off the table. All betting was counted in chips. Would've been such a hassle to try to count everything in dollars.

 

[smsguy927]

I deal for a group that plays $5/$10 limit using red and white. It's not optimal, but it works.