- Oct 29, 2014
- Reaction score
Curious on your analysis on the economical benefits of T25 base in more detail.
I too am unclear why T25 would be more economical. If the number of BBs is the same and the blind progressions equivalent, shouldn’t it require the same number of chips regardless of the stakes? You still need enough of each denom in the progression to run the tourney.
I would have to re-research it again. I posted it back on the Blue-wall, but ChipTalk has since disappeared. At the time, I only compared T1, T5 and T25, and T25 was the most economical of those three. It is possible that T100 is even better, and that T500 may be even better yet. Those were not computed, because in 1005, nobody really talked about T100 base sets. Times have changed.
Also, I should also state that the most economical will vary from host to host. If you always fill a table of 8, your needs will be different from someone who has 18 players this month, but only 12 players the next month. More people missing from filling out a set is extra cost not being used.
Needs will also vary based on blind progression. For example, of my two T500 sets, one tops out with a T1,000,000 and the other with a T100,000. If your structure goes through fewer chips, you may need more of each denomination (or make change more frequently). If you rapidly speed through the denominations (like my T1,000,000 set), you need slightly fewer as they have less time to get "unbalanced" between players. I can use just 6xT500 oer player in the Million set, but the 100,000 set I should need 8x per player for the same amount of change making.
The blinds themselves are also a huge factor. Take the following two T25 structures...
L1 25 50
L2 50 100
L3 150 300
L4 200 400
In the first example, you never need more than 3 T25s to fold through the blinds, and that is the first level, when the T25s are equally distributed. The rest of the tournament, you need no more than 2 T25s per orbit. In the second example, you need as many as 5 T25s in the blinds, and that's in level 4. You could get away with 8xT25s in the first structure with occasional change needed (and almost always available from the pot when betting is complete). The second structure requires 12xT25s, a 50% increase in set-cost for chips that will be removed from play at first color-up.
Not a commentary on the structures, both are excellent (or flawed). Just saying that your structure will impact your chip needs, and chip needs affect the economics of the overall set.