T10,000 Chip Purchase feedback (1 Viewer)

[Mike2023]

Hey Guys,

So I'm looking for a bit of feedback for a 1000 chip set I'm looking to pick up for a T100,000 home game. We typically run with 12 players now (T10,000) but I want the option to expand to 20 once and a while.

Any feedback is welcome,

Thanks all

 

[upNdown]

What denominations are you using in your T10,000 game?
I've never played a tournament with chips in the denominations you've proposed, but it seems inefficient to have two jumps where the next chip up is only double - 500 to 1,000 and 5,000 to 10,000. You'd never play with a cash set where the chips were .50, $1.00, $5.00, $10.00. Or maybe you would, but it would be inefficient.

 

[BGinGA]

Actually, a T500-T1000-T5000-T25000 set works very well for tournament stack sizes of T100K (100bb) to T300K (300bb).

Best scenario is either 100 chips of each denomination (10 players) or 200 chips of each denomination (20 players). T100K stacks are 10/10/7/2; add more T25K chips for larger stacks. A 400-chip (or 800-chip) set includes the perfect amount of color-up and re-buy chips (or add-on chips for larger stacks). In fact, every 2-table tournament chip set that I own (with large denominations) has at least 200 chips of each of those four denominations for exactly those reasons. It is most efficient when using T250K starting stacks with no re-buys: every single chip gets used.


As far as the OP's proposed tourney set is concerned, there are four glaring problems:

• 6 x T500 chips per player is not enough
• 27 x T1000 chips per player is way too many
• using T10,000 chips in play with T5000 and T25K chips is needless, inefficient, and confusing
• the set does not contain enough T25,000 chips

Needless to say, I don't like that 1000-chip set breakdown at all. There are nearly three times as many of the T1000 chips you need (they total over half the set), and the 50 x T10K chips are pretty much a waste of money, too. That's 400 total chips you don't need, out of the 1000 you are purchasing. I highly recommend against it.


I am also not fond of the inconsistencies present in the posted blind structure. The blind increases range from 25% to 100% (averaging 47%), and the T500 chips are used for only three levels. Expected maximum length of the event for 20 players is 5:40 plus breaks (about 5 hours plus breaks for 12 players).

Below is a much more consistent T100K blind structure for that number of players and total time frame - the blind increases range from 25% to 50%, averaging just 40%:

lvl sb bb
L1 500 1000
L2 500 1500
L3 1000 2000
L4 1500 3000
remove T500 chips
L5 2000 4000
L6 3000 6000
L7 4000 8000
L8 6000 12000
L9 8000 16000
remove T1000 chips
L10 10000 20000
L11 15000 30000
L12 20000 40000
L13 25000 50000
L14 35000 70000
remove T5000 chips
L15 50000 100000
L16 75000 150000
L17 100000 200000 ***
L18 150000 300000
L19 200000 400000

Expected maximum tournament length for 20 players with 20-minute blind levels is 5:40 (plus breaks), or about 5 hours (plus breaks) for 12 players. Add or subtract 15 minutes of total tournament time for every 1 minute change in the blind level times. For example, increasing the blind times by 4 minutes (to 24 minutes) adds an hour total time to the event.

 

[Mike2023]

Thanks for the feedback guys. Something to think about for sure. Let me re work my numbers and see if I come up with something I like and I will post back.

A couple of notes,

Efficiency doesn't really matter to me all that much. I'm more interested in a "good feeling game". What I mean by that is I like everyone to feel like they have a big stack in front of them to play with.

Our current T10,000 nights work well timing wise. About 4 - 5 hours.

 

[Trihonda]

Efficiency doesn't really matter to me all that much. I'm more interested in a "good feeling game". What I mean by that is I like everyone to feel like they have a big stack in front of them to play with.

Ok, so you're new. The OP, the structure, your post count all allude to that. So please don't take this too harshly. We were all new at one point.

Please consider taking BG's advice. He's the forum's defacto expert of tournament structure. It's like walking into a golf country club, asking for advice, and Tiger Woods just happens to be sitting nearby and chimes in. You listen. BG is also gracious enough to spend time and effort to help share his knowledge.

Secondly, the "good feeling" game comment is weird... a game with too many needless chips, and time wasted making change, or counting out weird betting denominations never "feels" good to me. An efficiently run game is a fun game IMHO. Your players will appreciate a good structure that plays well, and they'll appreciate chips that flow well with the game, and make sense.

Best of luck in hosting ventures.

 

[Mike2023]

Ok, so you're new. The OP, the structure, your post count all allude to that. So please don't take this too harshly. We were all new at one point.

Please consider taking BG's advice. He's the forum's defacto expert of tournament structure. It's like walking into a golf country club, asking for advice, and Tiger Woods just happens to be sitting nearby and chimes in. You listen. BG is also gracious enough to spend time and effort to help share his knowledge.

Secondly, the "good feeling" game comment is weird... a game with too many needless chips, and time wasted making change, or counting out weird betting denominations never "feels" good to me. An efficiently run game is a fun game IMHO. Your players will appreciate a good structure that plays well, and they'll appreciate chips that flow well with the game, and make sense.

Best of luck in hosting ventures.

Hahaha, Don't worry. I realize what I'm asking and who I'm asking it from. No worries, I won't take anything in a negative way and I'm very open to all advice given, regardless if its from the "tiger woods" of the forum or the new guy. ;-)

I'm looking over your suggestion BG for the structure and I like it so far. Question, if I want to inflate the chip stacks at the start of the game, how do you feel about jumping to T200,000 with the same structure? Ideally, I would like the starting chip stack to be about 40 chips for a 12 player game, for 20 players I could cut it back as to not over buy.

Thanks again.

 

[Trihonda]

If chips stack size was your main concern, and ~40 chips is the goal, I utilize a more standard T12k structure, which gets me 38 chips for a 20 person game.

Starting stacks are 12/12/7/7. Starting at 25/50 blinds. A 1000 chip set can be configured to spread this game very easily. With some tweaking, you could turn this into a 20k starting stacks game, with even more starting chips (still with 1000 total chips).

 

[Mike2023]

If chips stack size was your main concern, and ~40 chips is the goal, I utilize a more standard T12k structure, which gets me 38 chips for a 20 person game.

Starting stacks are 12/12/7/7. Starting at 25/50 blinds. A 1000 chip set can be configured to spread this game very easily. With some tweaking, you could turn this into a 20k starting stacks game, with even more starting chips (still with 1000 total chips).

Stack size and high denomination was the original goal. (playing with a million in chips seems more fun then 100,000 in chips, Ok, it sounds stupid when I type it out)

You have peeked my interest in the 20k starting stack game.

 

[Trihonda]

Stack size and high denomination was the original goal. (playing with a million in chips seems more fun then 100,000 in chips, Ok, it sounds stupid when I type it out)

You have peeked my interest in the 20k starting stack game.

Big starting stacks (deep stacks) is different than having lots of chips in your starting stacks. . Sounds like you want both.

Whatever your stacks are, don't sacrifice the structure to achieve it. .

 

[Joe Harris]

You'd never play with a cash set where the chips were .50, $1.00, $5.00, $10.00.

Add in $25s and that's the 50¢-$1 NLHE-NLO8 cash game I've been playing in. I tried to sneak in some better chips, but the players are quite resistant to change.

 

[upNdown]

Add in $25s and that's the 50¢-$1 NLHE-NLO8 cash game I've been playing in. I tried to sneak in some better chips, but the players are quite resistant to change.

Hey, if you have a group playing O8, you're doing just fine, I'd say.

 

[Mike2023]

Big starting stacks (deep stacks) is different than having lots of chips in your starting stacks. . Sounds like you want both.

Whatever your stacks are, don't sacrifice the structure to achieve it. .

Well, "Deep Stacks" in relation to the structure is not that important. But yes, larger amount of ships playing at a higher denomination was the goal, but I'm flexible. It's also just an excuse to buy more chips. lol

Here is BGs suggestion with 150,000 starting stack.

 

[Trihonda]

Here's a 20K starting stack setup for 20 players. I'm not really a fan of the breakdown of chips, but if you're looking for the most chips in a starting stack, here's an option.

For the set, I'd recommend 250/250/200/200/100

Here's a better breakdown IMHO, but it's for a 17k (12k if you eliminate the 5k to start). Just a preference, but I like to start with 40 or less chips. This makes it easier to distribute to players.

 

[Mike2023]

40 chips seems like a good amount.