Chip stack sizes?

I am more then willing to compromise and try something new. I'm posting a poll to see what the majority of the players prefer and I'll go from there.

Trust me what I am hearing from these post in this thread is nothing. As a tournament director I hear it from both sides and each side wants it there way.

This is not just on the chip issue either.

Now the poll will allow all the players to vote, but I will be taking into concideration what the TBJPA members and other land based tournament players want as well.

However high the chips stacks are to be determand, no 2nd stack of the same color will be allowed. Any chips over the set amount will be colored up.

$5 chips will be colored up, 5 chips to 1 - $25 chip
$25 chips will be colored up, 4 chips to 1 - $100 chip
$100 chips will be colored up, 5 chips to 1 - $500 chip

If the TBJPA does make this change I don't want more then one stack of any color chips, I want no more then 5 - color stacks, $2.50's, $5's, $25's, $100's, & $500's. This way no chips can be hidden behind the extra stacks.

If the players want an easier way to count the chips, then I am willing to give them an easier way, if that is what the majority wants.

*Please Note: It was brought to my attention, that my orignal post sounded as if I was up set with making any changes, I'm sorry if that is how I came across. I hope I have corrected my wording as to not to offend anyone or think I am up set.

 

But what you're suggesting adds a lot of unnecessary, and possible confusing, rules.

I noted in your poll that you made no voting possible for maximum stack size of 10. That would make it "easy" and eliminate all the "color up rules". So what if someone has 6 stacks of 10. If a player can't then see that the opponent has 60 chips then he/she is hopeless anyway.

Having stack sizes of up to 20 does nothing to eliminate chip counting as a needed "skill". 10 is the answer.

 

I probably should keep quiet here, since I don't play many land-based tournaments (due to distance) and haven't yet played a TBJPA.

Just to clarify how UBT does it, they have a rule that no chip stack can exceed 20 (was 10). But they allow more than one stack of each denomination.

 

Only one stack of each color...

As in my post, if we are going to have stack limits, then only have one stack of each color! No multiple stacks of $5's, $25's, $100's or even $500's, just one easy stack of each color for all to see.

In doing so we'll have to leave enough chips to avoid coloring down after every hand or two, so I believe 20 - 25 chip stacks would be about right.

 

Not at all, you feedback is very welcome.

I am sorry if you thought I was getting on to you Leftnut, that was not my intent. You have always been nothing but nice on this forum and have always asked vaild questions. My proir comment was made because everytime someone is trying to do something new, certain members seem to question why, when, and where.

I have no problem answering members questions or listening to concerns and possible improvements in the tournaments, but answering questions for members who don't even play any of the blackjack tournaments, (TBJPA, UBT, ClubUBT, or really any others for that matter).

My question to those members is why ask any questions and make negitive comments when you don't play in any of these blackjack events?

 

Thank you, Rick! I'll admit that your post had me sitting back in surprise. I've viewed myself as being a bit of a "bridge" between the established TBJ community and the newbies, having no experience in live TBJ events (until this coming weekend, that is), yet having played one table at the very highest level. That's why I come up with all these suggestions, I've got one foot solidly planted in both worlds and may be the only regular poster on this forum in that unique position. Since TBJ desperately needs to nurture the newbies somewhat, perhaps I can help. Our new players in live games are going to come from online venues. If we want them to embrace the live events, we need to make the transition as painless as possible. They're going to have enough distractions to deal with already that aren't present in their past TBJ experiences, making the chip counting just a little bit easier is not that huge of a compromise.

When I played that UBT TV final table, they had the Rule of Ten in effect for chip stacks. As a matter of fact, they started us out with multiple 10-stacks of certain denominations. A player still had to calculate stack totals with the piles of less than 10. Although I've been slamming UBT with some regularity lately, I firmly believe that they got this one right.

 

Betting issue?

The chip stacks have been discussed as to how many chips should be allowed in each stack, but what about the discussing the bets?

If players should have to keep their stacks for easier counting, then shouldn't there be rules on how bets are made as well?

Shouldn't it be a rule that no more then 4 - $5 chips are to be bet on one hand or it they will be changed to a $25 chip, no more then 3 - $25 chips bet or they will be changed to a $100 chip. And lets not forget the $2.50 chips, now only one of these would be allowed, because once you had two they would need to be colored up to a $5 chip.

The purpose of the chip stacks at a certain number of chips is to help make counting easier, so with that in mind it only makes sense that the bets be made easier for counting as well.

Changing the rule on chip stacking is fine, but if we do, then we also need to change the betting rule as well. After all why would it make sense to make it easier to count the other players chip stacks and not the players bet?

 

ok Rick

now with that last post you are just getting silly - don't push something simple into the absurd - there is no reason to be coloring up chips every hand - or messing with the betting

just require stacks of ten - and make sure that the chips have easy to distinguish colors and markings - so someone sitting 5 feet away can count without needing binoculars -

you don't need perfection - just enough of a change to make blackjack skill the most important part of the game - and reduce the importance of irrelevant mechanical skills unrelated to blackjack

 

As people mentioned above, I think the list in Rick's poll is incomplete and a false choice (though it seems that the conclusion is obvious). I added a separate poll that includes the UBT standard as an option, as there's no good reason not to consider this option.

P.S. I do appreciate that we are keeping this discussion civil, and I hope that my comments are taken in the spirit that they are intended. I think there is room on this site for this kind of discussion, and it doesn't have to resort to namecalling.

 

Chip Counting & Stacking

My .25 on this subject is from personal experiences. With regard to pro’s vs. con’s on the subject my hat off to Toonces post on the subject (I would nominate that for post of the month if this site offered that). http://www.blackjacktournaments.com/bb/showthread.php?t=4083&page=2

With regard to the mechanics behind chips/stack sizes, etc., I’ll say this:

Stack size: 10 is really too small because you could have multiple stacks. 20 is probably the best size. More than 20 can become unwieldy

Number of Stacks: No limit as long as they are in stacks of (X). Changing the chips constantly to only have 1 stack per color will slow the game down way too much. The dealers have a difficult enough time moving the button and other things so my response to this is just limit the stacks to the agreed height and if you’re bold/lucky enough to have 4-5 stacks more power to you.

Chips: The color of the chips should be standardized. Red=5, Green=25, Black=100 and Purple = 500 (if even necessary). The chips used at the first TBJPA were solid and, in my opinion, difficult to count compared to chips which have vertical markings, such as casino chips. (This is a PERSONAL preference)

Betting: Whatever you want to bet, as long as it isn’t in a stack greater than (X) should be allowed. If you wanted to bet 250 and do it with 20 reds, 1 black and 2 green fine. Once again don’t try to micro-manage things.

I would also suggest that a person at the table write down the bets on paper – like a tote (obviously not a player). The reason for this is to double check against any dealer payout errors and or players “palming” chips. If a TBJPA approved person were to watch and keep the tallies when the chip count-downs occur it would be a “double check”. Why is this important?

At the final table going into the final hand (30) it was discovered that I was missing a 5000 chip. This was discovered because someone had a list of the chip totals from the countdown after hand 25, my bets, win/loss/push results and the final chip total. What happened is that the dealer shorted me a chip on one hand. I missed this because I was too excited and counting OTHER peoples chips.

On a final note: the experienced TBJ players and those who have honed their chip counting abilities may be upset with the limit on chip stacks. I understand that they feel they have “paid their dues” and they have a point. However, these players will in all likelihood play in the TBJ with or without the chip stack rules.

The purpose of the chip stacks, in my opinion, is to lower one of the most intimidating barriers to the newer players and that is chip counting. More players mean bigger tournaments which mean bigger prize pools which mean more players. It’s a great cycle and if it means stacking chips in 20 then so be it.

My preference would be an electronic tote board with RFID chips so that everyone can see the totals at all times. Will this happen in the near future – no but I believe it would encourage a lot of online players to take a shot at live events. Another way this could be done is to have an excel spreadsheet and a flat screen monitor. Just a thought

 

Chip Counts

LOL....

No one has suggested stacking chips horizontally, instead of vertically.

Rick should invest in little wooden chip racks that hold say, 20 chips.
Each player would receive 3 racks, and when a rack space was exceed, the player would have to color up.

Rick, I will share the patent rights to this idea with you, since every tournament will eventually adopt this concept. We can call it the Frick rack.

 

Fredguy, that's a very interesting idea! Take a page out of the casino's own operational book. However, I can see one hole in it. With the chips in horizontal racks like that, the poor guy in seat 7 would have a helluva time seeing & counting the chips belonging to the guy in seat 1. And vice-versa.

 

Board

I found the UBT format of stacks to be good, But an electroinc or Whiteboard scoreboard as used On some Cruise ship Tournaments would be great.
I found when sitting in the middle of Tables at Venetian I could count Every players chips quickly and accuately,
Put me at either end and Chips at other end I just could hardly count they merged together more or less so just had to go by size compared to full stack, Yes I know my eyesight is not great, but Prescription Glasses give me Migrains, It is not right that besides all the other sitting disadvantages why should the person in the middle have such a great advantage? I would certainly not travel especially to attend a tournament which did not have stacks fixed to 10 or 20, Although if in Vegas and one was happening guess i might make an appearence

 

Reply with my reasoning

I’m not trying to be silly, but if your reasoning about chip stacks to make it easier to count the other players chips is valid enough to change the chip stacks, then the same rule should affect the bets as well. It makes no sense to make it easier to count another player’s chips, but not his chips as a bet?

It isn’t that my list is incomplete; it is that some of the other options really don’t work or can only cause more problems, so I saw no sense in listing them. I will be more then glad to explain way. Also no conclusions can be made from just these online polls, I believe that the maximum players ever to answer any of these online polls may have been 40 or less, not actuate to what the majority wants.

I agree with Toonces and do appreciate that this is one of the better discussions we have had on this site in sometime and it is VERY nice to discuss it in a civil manner. Hopefully more players will start to join in on the discussion and voice their opinions as well, without the fear of name-calling and being attacked.

Again I would love this feature, but I don’t see it happening anytime soon either. Last time I saw anything like that at a regular tournament (not the WSOB or UBT) was in 1985 at the old DI, and that was just showing the top 5 players scores for each session and even then it wasn’t on every hand.

Final question, if we could come up with some devise to hold and count chips, would the players be willing to pay for them? If not I don’t ever see a casino getting anything like that.

Actually we have used the poker racks (that carry 100 chips). The problem here is you can’t see all the chips. Now if they were to be standing up right against the cushion that could be something to think about. Problem there is an extra lip would have to be added to level the bottom and hold the chips standing up.

Lastly I want to say that I have enjoyed this thread so far, it is really nice actually having a discussion and just listening to other players opinions and explanations.

 

Frick Rack (patent pending)

If the 20 chip Frick Rack had heavy black lines at every 5th spot, and if you required all players to stack chips to the far left or right, then counting should be very easy, even for half blind old goats like me.

 

Rick to address two points:

1. The short changed chip by the dealer. Whose fault was that? Mine for not catching it. How was it resolved? I got the 5000 chip back in time for the final hand. Did it change things? Not really but it had to be done. Why? Because it was a televised event and when they keep the totals on the screen for the home audience everything has to "mesh" to keep it kosher.

2. The "electronic" tote board. Simple lost cost alternative. Have a laptop at each table with an excel spreadsheet hooked to a flat screen monitor. Assign a person to input the data (not a player). It would look like this:

SEAT 1 SEAT 2 SEAT 3 SEAT 4
HAND 1 START 2000 2000 2000 2000
HAND 1 BET 5 10 5 20
OUTCOME -5 -10 -5 30
HAND 2 START 1995 1990 1995 2030
HAND 2 BET 5 10 5 20
OUTCOME 5 10 5 40
HAND 3 START 2000 2000 2000 2070
HAND 3 BET 10 10 10 30
OUTCOME 10 20 20 60
HAND 4 START 2010 2020 2020 2130
HAND 4 BET
OUTCOME
HAND 5 START
HAND 5 BET
OUTCOME

WHY? Several reasons:
1. Keep accurate counts and eliminates any discrepancy on dealer payouts - See the past problem(s) with the incorrect payout at The Grand in Tunica (BJ)
2. This would prevent any players from "hiding chips" from their opponents
3. This levels the field for any players who have less than ideal vision
4. Allows players to concentrate on strategy decisions and less on counting chips
5. Allows spectators the ability to see the game and can actually increase participation - currently many people who would like to watch can't see the chip totals so it discourages some people from watching (my wife wanted me to mention this one )

 

I understand

For TV where everything is recorded, I can see th emistake being corrected. Had that $5,000 chip come in to play, WOW, I would have wanted to be the TD...LOL

That same thing happened on the WSOB II, but I believe that players mistake was getting over paid and it was caught in the middle of the round, no knockout cards on that show.

On a regular land base event, I would have to have ruled against you recieving the chip as TD. It is the same as the button getting placed out of order to me. Once the next hand is started I believe anything that happens before that hand is a dead issue.

 

I think the players will love this...

Tell you what I am going to do! For the Laughlin and Seattle events I will have the players stack their chips by color in stacks of 10 and in multiple stacks!

It will be up to the players to make sure the stacks are in 10's and in the correct order. So anytime during the game if a player ask another if they have their stacks of 10 and by color (should any of the stacks be hidden).

Now, should a player lose because another player actually had their stacks 11 high, O'well to bad!
It is still up to all the players to have their head in the game and still count chips, but now it is only 10 of them!

And one step futher with this rule, since no more then 10 chips in a stack, that means no more then 10 stacks of any color can be bet as well. This means 10 - $5 chips will be the most of any color on a bet. Example: you can bet 1 - $100, 2 - $25, and 10 - $5 chips for a $200 bet, but not 5 - $25, and 15 - $5 chips.

I am going to try this in Laughlin and at the Seattle events. After that I will take a survey of the players actually at these events and decide if we are to keep this rule or not.

Of the players who contacted me about not liking the stack limit rule, 4 of them couldn't make it to Laughlin so I figured this is as good of time to try it as possible.

Once again this was a very positive discussion, and very civil, hopefully we can start having many more. Great feedback from all involved!

 

Quick reply to a couple of matters I've seen between the two threads, based on my two experiences with UBT final tables (mine and Deb's):

1. I got the strong feeling that the chips on the table were immaterial for the TV shows. Somebody "in the booth" was keeping close track of the correct chips counts as the hands progressed. Mr. Einiger and Mr. Pane came out and manually counted out each stack right before and right after each elimination hand to compare with the chips on the table, and they were very, very careful about that count. Additionally, upon my placing one bet on the circle, the dealer stopped, listened to her earpiece, then verbalized my bet. Apparently I had not done that and the booth folks couldn't tell. My guess is that FGK's missing chip was discovered during one of these stack checking procedures. True, he should have noticed that he was shorted a chip when it initially happened, but if I had been him and was told that I was shorted and couldn't have it back, I'd be screaming bloody murder. And if I had been one of his opponents whose carefully designed chip position got screwed up by that, I'd have blamed myself for not noticing it when it happened.

2. It's my understanding that at some early point in UBT's existence Mr. Hamilton polled the players about the chip stack height issue, and that's where the 10-per-stack rule came about. Wasn't an arbitrarily engineered surprise.

Just my 2 cents' worth, and I'll be happy to stack 'em any way you like.