Just dawned on me I'm not entirely sure I want to keep having two blinds.

I know it creates a bit more action by having two blinds, I suppose.

But weighing that vs. the simplicity of only one blind, the fact no one blindsteals anyway in our 25/50 cent game, it would eliminate the use of 25 cent chips altogether, therefore making all the pots easier to handle. It would also make chopping a non-existent thing, since chopping is always encouraged at our cash game just to speed things up for everyone. Also one less person that would have to be reminded of "blinds", and therefore everyone gets a little more freedom (and who ever wants to be in the SB, with anything? lol)

Thoughts?

For home games, a single blind does simplify things. In your case, I'd almost recommend doing one $1 blind. Slightly bigger than 25c/50c, and you don't have yo play with pesky 50c chips (as it sounds like you do). Then all you need is $1s, $5s, and the occasional $25. And you really only need one rack of $1s, since the $5 will be the workhorse chip in a $1 big blind game.

I think you need to step back and taking a look at the big picture.

Being a winning poker player is all about having an edge of your opponents.

Having 2 blinds is an edge because a lot of our villains will make mistakes simply because they feel they are "priced in".

So, if you remove one of the blinds you are inadvertently eliminating a leak that most of your opponents will have and in effect you are reducing your winrate.

food for thought...

very true! didn't even think that most people will complete with complete crap, make a second best hand and then pay off on it...great point.

That might be a big enough point to deter any more discussion about this, unless I get some more people weighing in (which I hope I do)

Keep it coming!

that's all huh....still on the fence now