This is bonkers. No need to overthink it. FWIW, I belong to a forum comprised mostly of game hosts who collect playable sets for their games. This group has go

This is bonkers. No need to overthink it. FWIW, I belong to a forum comprised mostly of game hosts who collect playable sets for their games. This group has gotten optimal breakdowns for various games (from 5¢/10¢ up to nosebleed stakes) down to a science, through actual hosting experience. The collective number of hours hosted by these members is astronomical. A standard notion is that you rarely need more than 4-6 denoms for most games, with really only 3 of those in any quantity of 100 or more for a one-table cash game. Also, that the jump between chip denominations functionally should be 4-5x the next lowest denom. So for example, a typical cash set meant to work for games ranging from 50¢/$1, $1/$2, and $2/$5 could make do with denoms of 50/1/5/25/100. For any given stakes, there is a “workhorse” denomination, and that’s the chip type you need the most of (e.g. $5 chips on 1/2 games). The only real divide among this group is those who like to use the fewest possible chips which is still comfortable, without change having to be made too often, vs. those who think poker is more fun with lots and lots of chips on the table, even if many are unnecessary. The idea of assigning non-denoms (i.e. chips with no value printed on them) all sorts of unstandard but “optimal” amounts is I suppose an interesting intellectual exercise, but in practice seems nuts. … Especially considering that chips are typically sold with existing amounts printed on them. To host with non-standard denoms requires undenominated chips used with some sort of printed or displayed key to remind players of the weird values.