Same Spot Style or Different Spot Styles (1 Viewer)

[chipjoker]

I really like spot progression, so many choices, so many neat looks.

 

[derekdd23]

I much prefer same spot pattern. It creates a real harmony in the set that you do not get from a set with multiple patterns.

 

[Taghkanic]

I have two colorblind regs in my game, so if I ever commission a set, I’m probably going to go with progressive edgespots and also different shaped inlays for each color chip. Every piece of info which promotes identification (and minimizes mistakes) is helpful.

As far as the original question... I’m not sure why it would be different for tournaments than cash, except that solids are maybe more “traditional” for tourneys. All the same arguments for progressive edgespots that apply to cash apply to tournaments, right? That you want to be able to quickly identify chips better?

I do love the minimalism of my Starburst solid tourney set. They are just beautiful: My first big chip purchase, and my best... But really, some spots would be better overall I think. Just not too busy—I don’t like it when a pile or stack of chips looks absolutely berserk, especially when some of the edgespot colors of one denomination are close to or match the base colors of other denoms.

 

[Quicksilver-75]

I've had both. In one instance ancestors the colors were very saturated and because of the same spot progression caused some hesitance when counting out or cleaning up a hand.
Since then, I've always liked a spot progression.

 

[Tommy]

Slight edge to same spot style so far.

 

[davin]

Slight edge to same spot style so far.

I’m with ya

 

[BGinGA]

Does anybody have any insight as to WHY they would prefer having the same spot pattern?

I get that there is some great sets out there that have the same pattern, but that doesn't mean that they still wouldn't be great if their patterns were different.

Historically, edge spots have been used in casinos to assist remote camera identification of the different cash checks on the tables. And as less important no-value chips, tournament sets were most frequently created as solids, or used simple uniform edge spots across all denominations.

Personally, however....

I prefer the -look- of a well-designed progressive spot pattern for tournament chips (think ES primaries or spotted Aztars). But I've found that solids or single-spot configurations work much better in actual practice for tournament sets, mostly because the base color of each chip is so more prominently displayed.

GCR solids, both WSOP 2007 sets (and their clones/tributes), and the Aurora Star hot-stamps are great examples -- they all play very well, with easy-to-read denominations, clear and distinct color choices, and without the unnecessary confusion in pots caused by multiple colors and spot patterns. Adding multiple spot patterns to any of those sets would greatly diminish their effectiveness during play, imo.

I do have a couple of tournament sets that use just two or three different spot patterns across all denominations, and they seem to work well as a compromise between the two spot design approaches (uniform vs progressive). The ACF tournament set uses just two (614 and 8D18. eight denoms), and my semi-custom 43mm set uses 8D18, 8V, and 3D38 spots across six denoms.

 

[kmccormick100]

Historically, edge spots have been used in casinos to assist remote camera identification of the different cash checks on the tables. And as less important no-value chips, tournament sets were most frequently created as solids, or used simple uniform edge spots across all denominations.

Personally, however....

I prefer the -look- of a well-designed progressive spot pattern for tournament chips (think ES primaries or spotted Aztars). But I've found that solids or single-spot configurations work much better in actual practice for tournament sets, mostly because the base color of each chip is so more prominently displayed.

GCR solids, both WSOP 2007 sets (and their clones/tributes), and the Aurora Star hot-stamps are great examples -- they all play very well, with easy-to-read denominations, clear and distinct color choices, and without the unnecessary confusion in pots caused by multiple colors and spot patterns. Adding multiple spot patterns to any of those sets would greatly diminish their effectiveness during play, imo.

I do have a couple of tournament sets that use just two or three different spot patterns across all denominations, and they seem to work well as a compromise between the two spot design approaches (uniform vs progressive). The ACF tournament set uses just two (614 and 8D18. eight denoms), and my semi-custom 43mm set uses 8D18, 8V, and 3D38 spots across six denoms.

We need more pics of your tourney sets for scientific evaluation...

 

[BeesKnees]

GCR solids, both WSOP 2007 sets (and their clones/tributes), and the Aurora Star hot-stamps are great examples -- they all play very well, with easy-to-read denominations, clear and distinct color choices, and without the unnecessary confusion in pots caused by multiple colors and spot patterns. Adding multiple spot patterns to any of those sets would greatly diminish their effectiveness during play, imo.

If that’s what makes this approach effective then why single it out to just tournament sets? Going back to my original post it’s difficult (at least for me) to say these sets were great because of the repetitive spot patterns. Who knows, maybe the could have been even better?

So from what I can surmise, most like the repeating spot patterns either because;

A-This is a more traditional approach.
B- They just plain like the looks and can’t explain why.
or C- It’s just one more reason to have one more set.

All of which are perfectly good reasons, especially C, that is a top notch reason to do anything. I was just trying to see if there was something I was missing (and maybe there still is).

 

[BGinGA]

Yeah, I think you missed D - repeating spot pattern tournament sets play better. Increased functionality is the biggest plus in my book.

 

[BeesKnees]

Yeah, I think you missed D - repeating spot pattern tournament sets play better. Increased functionality is the biggest plus in my book.

What is it about a tournament that makes this approach to design so much better that would not also equate to a cash game?

 

[BGinGA]

What is it about a tournament that makes this approach to design so much better that would not also equate to a cash game?

Generally fewer denominations in play in a typical cash game.