Why would you prefer 43mm over 39mm for all chips in play? (1 Viewer)

P.S. Other aspects of the “infrastructure” of poker I would agree have more to do with economics, largely driven by the casino industry, than with actual usability.

The main example I’ve been writing about is the emergence of 9/10-handed racetrack tables with an additional seat for a dealer for poker as the standard. I consider this a very undesirable development from both usability and gameplay standpoints. This backward standard would never have been replicated in home games if not for the gaming industry making it commonplace, for their own (not very rational) economic reasons. But unfortunately, a lot of hosts just go for a giant racetrack table in an effort to be “like a real casino game.”

For most of the history of poker, the game was played 4-6 handed—at most 7-8 if the game variant allowed—at square or round tables. Even into the 1950s and 1960s, when you look at photos of people playing poker it is rare to see a “full ring” game.

But 9/10-handed games start creeping in as the gaming industry became more consolidated and conformist. The expansion of the number of players and the use of these giant racetrack tables also coincided with the slow demise of drawing games in favor of no limit hold-’em. You’re not playing most draw or even stud games with 9/10 players.

NLHE allowed casinos to cram in more and more players per table, while having the same or fewer dealers. The industry thought that this would net them more money per hour. So these very long, crowded tables became the standard, even though both the gameplay and the comfort level suffers from it.

There is an economic counterargument to be made that even with the added cost of a few extra tables and a few more dealers per room, casinos would actually rake more money from poker if they used *smaller* tables accommodating fewer players per table. Shorter-handed games produce more hands per hour, and therefore more rake. 9/10-handed games mean that each hand takes more time.

I would like to hope that the standard of giant tables with 9+players each may evolve again as 4- and 5-card games continue to become more popular.
 
It’s a lot like countless other everyday objects such as doorknobs or computer keyboard keys or mop handles... After decades or even centuries of making such things, producers of these goods see what the optimal size range should be for the largest percentage of users. You can deviate from them, and sometimes manufacturers do; but people are not just going to dislike the change from what’s familiar, many are actually going to have trouble using the product.
Very cool, thanks for your answer. This is great info and I'd love to read the book eventually!

One followup question, bringing up cards, don't we use bridge size in casinos for similar reasons? I relate the 39mm vs 43mm to bridge vs poker: none of my players play in casinos much, SO (I think this is the relationship, no p-value lol) they prefer poker sized cards and 43mm. I'd love to learn more about what drove the two card sizes; ease of dealer shuffling in casinos? I love the bigger artwork.
 
P.S. Other aspects of the “infrastructure” of poker I would agree have more to do with economics, largely driven by the casino industry, than with actual usability.

The main example I’ve been writing about is the emergence of 9/10-handed racetrack tables with an additional seat for a dealer for poker as the standard. I consider this a very undesirable development from both usability and gameplay standpoints. This backward standard would never have been replicated in home games if not for the gaming industry making it commonplace, for their own (not very rational) economic reasons. But unfortunately, a lot of hosts just go for a giant racetrack table in an effort to be “like a real casino game.”

For most of the history of poker, the game was played 4-6 handed—sometimes 7-8 if the game variant allowed—at square or round tables. Even into the 1950s and 60s, if you look at photos of people playing poker it is rare to see a “full ring” game. But it starts creeping in as the gaming industry became more consolidated and conformist.

It is likely that the expansion of the number of players and the use of these giant racetrack tables was driven in part by the slow demise of drawing games in favor of no limit hold-’em. You’re not playing most draw or even stud games with 9/10 players.

NLHE allowed casinos to cram in more and more players per table, while having the same or fewer dealers. The industry thought that this would net them more money per hour. So these very long, crowded tables became the standard, even though both the gameplay and the comfort level suffers from it.

There is an economic counterargument to be made that even with the added cost of a few extra tables and a few more dealers per room, casinos would actually rake more money from poker if they used *smaller* tables accommodating fewer players per table. Shorter-handed games produce more hands per hour, and therefore more rake. 9/10-handed games mean that each hand takes more time.
YES! OVALS SUCK! YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!
 
This is something I’ve actually researched for my long-running book project... Amazingly, the same 39mm/1.5" size has been the standard going back almost 150 years—no matter what material is used, including early “clays,” acetates, various composites, bakelite and other resins, ceramics, plastics/injection molds, etc.

If economic and storage considerations were the main factor, you would expect companies to be using the major advances in both material options and mass-production techniques to be shaving a mm or two here or there off the 39mm standard—same way that your cereal boxes keep getting verrrry slightly smaller with less cereal inside the bag.

You’d also expect them also to try to make chips *thinner*, if even just by a fraction of a millimeter... But neither is happening. Why? I believe because the standard dimensions and thicknesses used by Paulson/GPI, ASM/CPC, etc. are not just familiar to people, but actually ideal from a usability standpoint.

If anything, the cost and availability of materials has steadily gone down over time, making economics less of a consideration.

Both smaller and larger size chips that were tried at various have by now either been eliminated completely, or else relegated to specialty runs (e.g. chips for children, the occasional 36mm tourney chips, and more gaudy showcase chips at 43mm+ sizes).

My research suggests that the widespread, simultaneous and virtually unanimous decision to settle on this 39mm/1.5" size arose first and foremost from ergonomic considerations which developed organically over decades of trial-and-error.

Much the same can be said about cards: The standard size and ratio of dimensions (what we now call “poker size”) has been shockingly almost completely unchanged since the late 18th century. It’s hard to think of many other products which have been so consistent overtime.

Card makers, too, had every economic incentive to make cards smaller, especially back when cards were made of laboriously-produced papers with a high cloth content, and strenuously inked by hand or on old-fashioned presses. Yet once the current standard size was arrived at (through another long process of trial-and-error), there was a widespread recognition across manufacturers and regions of the world that that this was the best size for the most people.

It’s a lot like countless other everyday objects such as doorknobs or computer keyboard keys or mop handles... After decades or even centuries of making such things, producers of these goods see what the optimal size range should be for the largest percentage of users. You can deviate from them, and sometimes manufacturers do; but people are not just going to dislike the change from what’s familiar, many are actually going to have trouble using the product.
Soooooo you'rrrreee saaaaaayinnng.....?
Screenshot_20230502_114423_YouTube.jpg
 
Very cool, thanks for your answer. This is great info and I'd love to read the book eventually!

One followup question, bringing up cards, don't we use bridge size in casinos for similar reasons? I relate the 39mm vs 43mm to bridge vs poker: none of my players play in casinos much, SO (I think this is the relationship, no p-value lol) they prefer poker sized cards and 43mm. I'd love to learn more about what drove the two card sizes; ease of dealer shuffling in casinos? I love the bigger artwork.

It’s not something I’ve looked into as closely yet—still working on the card section. But I believe there are two major imperatives as far as bridge vs. poker. One is economic and driven by the casino industry which buys tens of thousands of decks per year per location.

But another is a usability issue. There’s a reason they’re called bridge sized: Bridge players hold more cards at a time, typically, than poker players. So it’s easier to handle a lot of smaller cards than a lot of larger ones. (This may change as Omaha and other variants gain popularity.)

So my assumption (pending more research) is that the use of bridge-sized cards in poker rooms is more economic than ergonomic. Since 2-card poker is still dominant, there is no good reason at this point to prefer smaller cards except to save money. The larger poker size cards are also easier to “read” to the extent that they can feature bigger indices and pips.
 
So my assumption (pending more research) is that the use of bridge-sized cards in poker rooms is more economic than ergonomic. Since 2-card poker is still dominant, there is no good reason at this point to prefer smaller cards except to save money. The larger poker size cards are also easier to “read” to the extent that they can feature bigger indice and pips.
Just some grist for the mill, but when I was coming up Hold 'Em/etc. was certainly the most popular game in casinos but Stud games were still very popular and obviously the smaller Bridge size are much better suited to that. So if your poker room was spreading say 15 tables of HE/Omaha and 10 tables of Stud variants and you wanted only one kind of card, Bridge size would be it.
 
Just some grist for the mill, but when I was coming up Hold 'Em/etc. was certainly the most popular game in casinos but Stud games were still very popular and obviously the smaller Bridge size are much better suited to that. So if your poker room was spreading say 15 tables of HE/Omaha and 10 tables of Stud variants and you wanted only one kind of card, Bridge size would be it.

Were they using bridge size cards back then in the rooms you played in? What decade was this? Just curious when the move away from poker size began.
 
Just watched an episode of Super High Stakes Poker at The Lodge and it was apparent they all had 43mm chips. I gotta be honest they looked delicious to shuffle and stack. I've never played with all 43mm chips only higher denoms. What are your experiences playing with 43mm chips in your home sets vs 39mm? Pros & Cons.
My set is all 43mm. It is specifically about having more design space since my set is a photo tour. It does take more real estate on the table for sure, especially if like me you are into all players having 40-60 or more chips a piece.
 
Were they using bridge size cards back then in the rooms you played in? What decade was this? Just curious when the move away from poker size began.
Yup. 90s. Atlantic City. Played in Vegas a few times in the early aughts, but I can’t recall what was used there.
 
Then that begs the question, how did they come up with the size of the silver dollar?
Wikipedia suggests it was based on the Spanish dollar which was minted at approximately that size as far back as 1500's.
Since we know people were smaller back then, with little lady fingers, it stands to reason that our modern chips should be a bit bigger. Say, 43mm?
 
That seems more likely to me than millions of differently sized fingers coming to a consensus.

In what era? Silver dollars have come in lots of different sizes, some as small as 1" in diameter (about 25 mm). I believe the largest ever produced in the U.S. was 38mm—smaller than standard poker chips.

Millions of people using variations on various forms of gaming tokens over some 200 years now, across billions of hands (and not just in poker), has been a powerful iterative process that allowed for countless sizes and weights to be tried, with the less usable ones falling by the wayside.. until a winner was left standing.

39 mm won that Darwinian process.
 
In what era? Silver dollars have come in lots of different sizes, some as small as 1" in diameter (about 25 mm). I believe the largest ever produced in the U.S. was 38mm—smaller than standard poker chips.

Millions of people using variations on various forms of gaming tokens over some 200 years now, across billions of hands (and not just in poker), has been a powerful iterative process that allowed for countless sizes and weights to be tried, with the less usable ones falling by the wayside.. until a winner was left standing.

39 mm won that Darwinian process.
Is this based on actual research or just common sense and assumptions? Because we're talking about a product that I'd guess has existed for closer to 100 years. And I'd guess 1.5 inches became standard for far simpler reasons than evolution.
 
This is a focus in occupational therapy too, which is a super interesting and still young field. Most of the time, the standard emerges from economic reasons. But many times, it emerges from our hand preference.

You can watch this normalization happening with smart phone sizes right now. I am typing this on an iPhone 14, which sits snug between my palm and my finger tips.
 
Is this based on actual research or just common sense and assumptions? Because we're talking about a product that I'd guess has existed for closer to 100 years. And I'd guess 1.5 inches became standard for far simpler reasons than evolution.

Per above, actual research for a book whose draft currently runs about 150,000 pages… (And counting.)

I don’t buy the improbable idea that all chip makers suddenly all agreed simultaneously at some specific date between 1880-1940 (the period when the chipmaking industry both most intensely experimented, evolved and also coalesced around now-familiar standards) … just because supposedly the one dollar coin happened to be 39 mm at that moment.

But certainly, if specific evidence were produced (besides some 1950s magazine just throwing out a theory), I’d be all ears. On what dates were U.S. silver dollars 39mm? Now, compare those dates to what decades saw manufacturers slowly but surely dropping all the other countless diameters, shapes, weights, thicknesses and settle pretty universally at 39mm x 3.5 mm.

And then, one would need to demonstrate some actual causal connection between the two. As opposed to (say) their resemblance to buttons on Civil War coats, which some claim were flattened to make early chips.

By contrast, the case for an evolution based on usability, with players and hosts effectively casting billions of votes with their play, has as Exhibit A a slow sequential browse through the countless types of chips produced over many decades—which gradually converge on 39mm.

As a side note, it’s both intriguing and telling that the U.S. gaming industry seems to have had little interest in adopting the earlier European preference for plaques. But these certainly have been tried. I believe their lack of use here has more to do with the chip being a much more practical (and also more fun) option than with some allegiance to simulating a silver coin.
 
a slow sequential browse through the countless types of chips produced over many decades
I guess that's the piece I'm missing - I just haven't seen much of that. I've vaguely aware that poker chips came in various shapes and sizes for what I imagine to be a short time toward the end of the old west. And I know europeans have had their differently sized plaques and jetons, though I feel like that was a separate evolution from the American poker chip.
I guess I don't KNOW much about it, so get to work on that book!
 
P.S. There is arguably no “simpler” theory than slow evolution. It requires no intention or plan.

Analogy: Why are hammers you find in hardware stores today almost all roughly the same length, with heads and handles almost universally the same size? Because those specs are what works best for the most consumers, for the most common tasks, based on the size of human hands, the need for balance, and natural striking motions. Go back 200 or even 2,000 years and hammers were all over the place. You could manufacture a hammer 3 or 333 inches long, but you’re not going to sell many of those sizes.

This article provides some interesting context, saying that basic hammer design goes all the way back to Roman times, but that today’s common framing hammer standard came about due to the building boom of the 1950s:

https://www.finehomebuilding.com/project-guides/framing/hammered-the-history-of-hammer-design
 
Interesting theory on the evolution of the chip size. Seems logical.

If poker chips were based on the 38.1mm silver dollars prevalent from 1840s on… why the $1? $1 in 1850 is worth almost $39 today. (This is the era where they 1/2¢ coin is still in circulation.) It isn’t until after WWI that the $1 of the day is worth $20 today (and it was worth about that going into WWII). So how common was the $1 coin, how common was it used in poker games as “chips” came onto the scene? Why the $1 then, when they start making poker chips given how much relative value it held? And why then round up to 39mm?
 
Were they using bridge size cards back then in the rooms you played in? What decade was this? Just curious when the move away from poker size began.
I think they have been using bridge sized cards in casinos for poker for a very very long time. Pics from the very first World Series of Poker show bridge cards and I think there is a pic I posted here long ago where you can see the Kem Ace of spade from one of the first WSOPs.

I first played in a casino around 2020-2021. 7 card stud at the Sands in AC on a company trip. I remember noticing the narrow cards. I’ve never scene anything but bridge sized at any casino ever.

As for 43 mm chips, for my second custom set (ceramics) I went with those simply because I already had 39 mm chips. My first set were old ASM clays with not much space for art. So part of my decision was that but I do really like the feel of 43 mm chips. The biggest problem is the availability of racks with covers that can be stacked and put in a birdcage. I think they’re only two options for those.


21CEFE56-F6CE-457C-9B63-41C17D672A00.jpeg
BA017A49-FC79-4CE1-AE90-C09C2E20274C.jpeg
68739F57-F525-40A2-A130-6DF747F25964.jpeg
 
Cash denom checks are/were considered a type of currency, and in many cases had to abide by the same manufacturing practices as government minted currency. So why wouldn't they copy the approximate size of a coin in circulation? Perhaps the industry, when finally regulated, just took the size as a "best fit" and it became a rough standard.
 
The only 43mm I recall handling are a sample set of Majestics. Sure they're plastic but as far as size it didn't seem to make a great deal of difference to me one way or the other, though I have spend decades with the standard. I'm quite happy with 39mm, wouldn't cry over a set of 43mm. The only significant difference would be so much secondary and tertiary gear for chips is made for 39mm so that seems to be the way to go if one needs that type of stuff.
 
I have no preference either way. What I DON'T like is 39 and 43 mixed in the same set. They should be all one size or another.
 
I have no preference either way. What I DON'T like is 39 and 43 mixed in the same set. They should be all one size or another.
I don’t particularly disagree with this. But I haven’t been able to find 43mm leaded dollars and quarters. So the suffering continues.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom