Tourney T500 but without the zeros? (1 Viewer)

[FearlessFred]

I agree with your argument, both about the efficiency of T500 and about the unnecessary zeros. But I would consider having chips labeled "500", "1k", "5k" and "25k". The "k" eliminates the extra zeroes but the chips are still in standard denominations people are familiar with. Seems like a best of both worlds.

That's an interesting proposition. All bets after the first couple of levels would be X number of K, very simple

 

[FearlessFred]

Logically, I agree about making the more efficient jumps but the weirdness of those denoms have proven difficult to overcome.

Slightly less inefficient sets but with more intuitive denoms is the way to go for most. But we can’t all swim with the current. Hopefully your players will adapt

I don't think there's anything inherently intuitive about the standard denoms set. They, after all, came about from the WSOP, which itself, started as a cash game

 

[Eriks]

I don't think there's anything inherently intuitive about the standard denoms set. They, after all, came about from the WSOP, which itself, started as a cash game

No, you’re probably right, but they have managed to stick around for 50+ years. I have nothing to gain/lose from you using the one or the other system. You do you, hopefully it works out well for your group.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I agree with those saying "it's wonky, but you do you". But I would definitely try it out first with cheap dice chips! Buy second hand, try it out a few times, then sell for what you paid.

What's wonky or not is a bit dependent on what you are used to in local currency. The T25 is wonky for non-poker playing Swedes, because we don't have a quarter like the Americans. If we see 13 T25 we need to add it up, whereas I suspect americans (and Swedes who were alive in the seventies) just magically see 325 pop up.

A few questions though:

This 300 chip set can support 8 players with perfect colour ups.

Just curios, what do you mean with perfect color-ups?

In a T500 set this is minimised by only using a few 500s to allow for smoother early blind levels

Curios about this as well. It's not minimized, is it? When the T500 is a higher value chip (relative to the stack) you can get away with even fewer. For example, T25 base breakdowns can get away with fewer since if someone runs out, they can use T100 to compensate. For example, 8/8/4/7 or 12/12/5/6 use 4 and 5. I've even myself used 12/12/3/7 (i.e., just 3!) without issues.

Or did you mean minimized to be used in only the first three levels? If so, then this is one of the reasons I don't have a T500 base set: You buy chips that become redundant after only a few levels.

Also, what do you mean by "for smoother blind levels". Why would this structure mean smoother levels compared to any other?

 

[Mr Winberg]

@FearlessFred , I'm not trying to rain on your parade or anything. The questions are because I'm generally curious. Also, I'd hate for you to invest in a set based on assumptions that aren't 100% on target. I'm happy to help you think things through.

Regarding my dice chip idea: That's how I did with my cash set. And I'm glad I did, because I could make valuable adjustments based on that experience before investing in my real set!

 

[maxim_666666]

I’d prefer to have a T500 instead of having a T5 and imagining it’s a T500.

 

[FearlessFred]

I agree with those saying "it's wonky, but you do you". But I would definitely try it out first with cheap dice chips! Buy second hand, try it out a few times, then sell for what you paid.

What's wonky or not is a bit dependent on what you are used to in local currency. The T25 is wonky for non-poker playing Swedes, because we don't have a quarter like the Americans. If we see 13 T25 we need to add it up, whereas I suspect americans (and Swedes who were alive in the seventies) just magically see 325 pop up.

A few questions though:

Just curios, what do you mean with perfect color-ups?


Curios about this as well. It's not minimized, is it? When the T500 is a higher value chip (relative to the stack) you can get away with even fewer. For example, T25 base breakdowns can get away with fewer since if someone runs out, they can use T100 to compensate. For example, 8/8/4/7 or 12/12/5/6 use 4 and 5. I've even myself used 12/12/3/7 (i.e., just 3!) without issues.

Or did you mean minimized to be used in only the first three levels? If so, then this is one of the reasons I don't have a T500 base set: You buy chips that become redundant after only a few levels.

Also, what do you mean by "for smoother blind levels". Why would this structure mean smoother levels compared to any other?

I would purchase the following:
50x T500
100x T1000
100x T5000
50x T25000

These 300 chips support an 8 player player 200BB tourney perfectly and can be used for shallower starting stacks with rebuys.

Starting stack of 6/12/12/5 gives T200k. There are exactly 4 spare T1k and T5k in the set which are used to colour up the 500s and then 1ks when required.

The negative effect of the T500 is turned into a positive in a T500 base tourney. Usually it is an unwanted inefficiency but with the small addition of some T500 the set is able to support smoother early level transitions. An inherent problem with T100 is that the starting blinds of 100/100 have to double to get the next level or you need more chips to give out 20k starting stacks.

 

[MeridianFC]

Nothing more efficient than T1 base

1/5/25/100/500

 

[Mr Winberg]

There are exactly 4 spare T1k and T5k in the set which are used to colour up the 500s

But you should never color-up with chips that will be colored off. Two reasons: 1) it's inefficient to introduce chips that will be removed later anyway and 2) per definition you don't need more T1000, because if you needed more they would have been in the starting stack.

I'm not saying that using the 4 spare T1000 will ruin the night , but I'm just pointing out that while it sounds neat in theory, it's not a practical feature of this breakdown.

Usually it is an unwanted inefficiency but with the small addition of some T500 the set is able to support smoother early level transitions. An inherent problem with T100 is that the starting blinds of 100/100 have to double to get the next level or you need more chips to give out 20k starting stacks.

I think I see what you mean. You mean having 1000/2000 as level 1, then 1500/3000 as level 2? Yes, this is a benefit of T500 base. The equvalent of a T100 base would be 200/400 as level 1 then 300/600.

It very common to compare apples to oranges when comparing blind structures. Like you're comparing to 100/100, that only works if you intend on doing 500/500 in a base T500, which I guess you're not since you speak of "smoothness"?

To compare apples to apples:

	Base 100	Base 500
Lowest possible levels, no lopsided levels:	L1: 100/200 L2: 200/400	L1: 500/1000 L2: 1000/2000
Lowest possible levels, lopsided allowed:	L1: 100/100 L2: 100/200	L1: 500/500 L2: 500/1000
Lowest possible levels, no doubling, lopsided allowed:	L1: 100/200 L2: 100/300	L1: 500/1000 L2: 500/1500
No lopsided, no doubling	L1: 200/400 L2: 300/600	L1: 1000 L2: 2000

If you're in the "no doubling, no lopsided" camp, then yes, 1000/2000 is more natural than 200/400. (Of course, the T25 base equvalent of 50/100, 75/150 is pretty natural as well, just sayin).

But just to be clear, every single breakdown known to man allows for a smooth progression.

The con, I believe, with L1 1000/2000 is that the T500 is only used for a single level, namely L2 1500/3000. One could argue L4 2500/5000, but that level is rarely needed/used in a home game. Speaking of "efficiency", it's a bit of a waste to buy chips for a single level in my opinion.

Which starting levels are you envisioning to use?

 

[Sal Bandini]

OP states his cash set is 0.10, 0.50, 2, and sounds like he wants to use an existing structure and divide the numbers down. 0.10, 0.50, 2 is functionally the same as someone having a T25 or T100 set and using T2000 chips instead of T1000 chips. Using T100 as the smallest denomination and dividing by 1000 would do the trick.

Looking at one of @BGinGA blind structures (https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/t5-starting-stack.121923/post-2504649) I quickly came up with this as a starting point.

0.20/0.40
0.30/0.60
0.40/0.80
0.60/1.20
0.80/1.60
1.20/2.40
Remove T0.10
1.50/3.00
2.00/4.00

...

 

[Mr Winberg]

1.20/2.40
Remove T0.10

One thing to keep in mind is that at this level the T0.10 is 1/24 of the min bet. They will become a hassle by then.

 

[Sal Bandini]

One thing to keep in mind is that at this level the T0.10 is 1/24 of the min bet. They will become a hassle by then.

No different than the blind structure I linked to in my post. Scaling makes it the same.

There is a 5x chip out so it doesn't matter. With 5x chip you never need more than 4 of the lower value chips to make the bet.

 

[Mr Winberg]

No different than the blind structure I linked to in my post. Scaling makes it the same.

Yes, that's true. But I have the same comment for that structure as well.

It's no big deal, but I just don't like it since it slows down the game. But to each their own.

 

[Sal Bandini]

Yes, that's true. But I have the same comment for that structure as well.

It's no big deal, but I just don't like it since it slows down the game. But to each their own.

Another option is to make the structure more aggressive and then you eliminate those 4 small chip requirements. Depending on the time you want it to last that is possible.

 

[Baxit]

If you're keen on the exact T500 progression, you can go (a) .50 1 5 25, (b) 1 2 10 50 or (c) 500 1k 5k 25k with letter k. When the smallest denom can cause confusion (case a or c), you may use a different style for this chip (like hot stamp fracs in cash sets).

 

[Tarsus4]

Why is T25 or T25000 more intuitive than t250 or t2500?

Because T25 (or T0.25) is only used to make multiples of 25, and T25k is barely used at all at home-game scales. As others have noted, it's more intuitive to count in 1s and 5s. I don't have an opinion on where you put the decimal point, but using a 25 chip as a workhorse wouldn't be my preference (the T5 thread linked early on breaks my brain!)