blonde poker forum

This is something that I don't understand:

 £4500 + $5000 package for first place, £300 for fourth through ninth places.

I thought that APAT tourneys were supposed to replicate festival main events. 

After all the lobbying on here for flatter payout structures I am at a loss to understand the thinking behind this.

I wondered about this as well but just presumed it was a sponsor driven decision.

I find it a bit strange as its the sort of payout structure that encourages deals yet deals are against APAT rules.

i spoke to des a few times over the weekend and also to tony and richard

from my understanding they will look into a flatter rate for future

my recomendation was £2k off the top £500 for 9-5 and the other £1 added to the 4th 3rd and 2nd places (split it how you will)

this will still leave 1st with a heallty sun when you include the ept seat it will also leave for the good poker we saw at the final table

rather than what you sometimes see off tourny strategy with people passing hands to climb the ladder

also £500 for the final table would of allowed most of the finalist to cover there costs remember we are in the comp

to make money but if we do well it would benice not to be out of pocket

can i suggest though instead of just making posts being critical please offer solutions i m sure that the APAt team will listen

No need to be so defensive Ironside, I'm sure that the APAT board can speak for themselves.

I am not being critical, just curious.

I assume that this has been thought through and am asking them to explain their thinking.

This first event has been a great success and everyone has congratulated them, me included.

1st           30%     + EPT SEAT
2nd           20%    
3rd       14%    
4th         10%    
5th         8%    
6th         6%    
7th         5%    
8th         4%    
9th         3%

Not that hard is it?

Not that it had anything to do with me, but I thought it was harsh having one final tableist that didn't get anything.  Surely either a 10th prize should be included, or that final table should be for 9 people.

I will respond to this later this evening, I am tied up right now.

But I must just correct one thing immediately - the winners package was $8,000, not $5,000. (Excluding first place prize money).

Later.

Hi Ralph,

Thank you for your question.

I will go through this in "bullet-point" style. I will stick to the Payout Structure & not go into other areas of contention.

Payout Structures are subjective. You cannot claim to be right, neither can we. Your view is valid, ours is valid, our Members views (of which you are one ) are valid. We will give the Members what they want, consistent with the aims of APAT, which was designed for recreatiional players.

I have long lobbied for flatter payout structures in circuit Festival Events. (and been pilloried for it!). I shall continue so to do. Circuit Festival Events are for a different breed of player to those we sought to serve in APAT.

To understand why we made them so top-end heavy, one needs to think a little different from conventional wisdom.

I was entirely opposed to the peaky structure when I first discussed accepting APAT's Invitation to be their Year One Chairman, in fact, I almost turned it down on this subject alone.

Des Duffy explained to me his thinking patiently, carefully & persuasively. I began to see his point.

Then I was approached by PokerStars, one of our Sponsors. These guys are serious Pros, they know their stuff inside out. PokerStars are THE consummate professionals when it comes to understanding the Poker market. They made the same case. For me, when PokerStars talk, I listen good.

After some deep deliberation, I saw where they & Des were coming from, & decided I would go for it.

The concept is totally different to normal circuit Events. There are tens of thousands - hundreds of thousands? - of Recreational players out there who have never been near a Casino. They are frightened of casinos, the mere thought intimidates them.

These guys (our Members) are NOT in poker for money, they play it for the buzz it gives them. It would never occur to any of them to play poker for a living, or even a semi-living. It's a hobby. As such, the nature of the Payout Structure does not overly interest them. (Or has not done thus far). We award Gold, Silver & Bronze Medals for 1st, 2nd & 3rd - not cheapo jobs, either. We envisaged them playing for the glory of winning. If someone wants to play just for the money, APAT is not for them. During yesterday's Final, I was tableside the entire time. I never heard the word "deal" mentioned once, except when I announced ""shuffle Up & Deal"!).

We hope to run a parallel Pro-Am Series next year - the Payout Structures will be completely different. Different market, different needs, different answer.

We advertised the payout structure from Day One. Member signed up fully aware of this - at least, we had tried to make sure they were aware of it, it was there for all to see. The Event was massively over-subscribed. This suggests to us that the Payout Structure was not as wrong - if wrong at all - as many had suggested. There is a silent majority out there, believe me! (In my opinion).

Nobody - not one, single soul - at the Event grumbled about the Payout Structure.

You have seen the batch of new Members on blonde today, many of them APAT-ers, & the comments they have made about what a good weekend it was.

In addition, I have received 27 e-Mails to my APAT e-addy today alone, every single one of them wholly complimentary. I only wish I could publish them, I am so proud of every one of them.

We said, again & again, in the teeth of aggressive & often quite rude sniping, that once Event # 1 was out of the way, we'd consult with our Members to see if they were happy, ask them to set up their own Committee, to collate & feed info through from the Membership. That process can start now. It was necessary for us to decide things for Event # 1, as it was important to us that everyone knew what the deal was BEFORE they signed up, & at that time, we did not have a Membership.

So, right now, at this moment, I think we got it right, simply because the weight of evidence suggests as much.

I may well, of course, be entirely wrong. But my role as Chaiman will be voted for at the end of Year One, so the Members can eject me (assuming I agree to stand again) if they believe I am taking them in the wrong direction.

I am bound to say, at this moment in time, I shall be surprised if we amend the Payout Structure for Event # 2, as it seemed to be perfectly received in Event # 1. But if the Members wish it, we will - obviously - consider it.

Finally, many APAT Members have spoken to me at length, & I made a point of talking to as many of them as possible over the weekend, on a one-to-one basis, "are you happy with the way things are going?". That's a loaded & unfair question, they may well be constrained from saying "no, it's crap", but my spidey senses suggest they meant it. But what WAS interesting was this comment, made in various forms by 6 or 7 of them. "Look, if you've got a detail here & there wrong, so what? We've got a great social weekend, you've added a Seat worth $8,000, we've had a ball, so even if it's not perfect, on balance it's been briliant".

And that's the thing - on balance. I don't much like red cars, but give me a red Jensen & I'll not complain. Give some folks a red Jensen & they'll moan & whinge, because they prefer black! We just have to accept this.

We think - think - we've done a good job so far, but there are some folks who are never going to accept that, as they clearly have a hidden agenda. I exclude you, entirely & emphatically, from that category, the question was fair, & put in a civil tone.

I have, with Rich & Des, argued APAT's corner for almost 2 months now, patiently & politely throughout, in the face of some extremely aggressive, rude, & often pure mischievous questioning. I want to spend more of my time now developing the APAT theme, planning for the future, trying to introduce stuff across Tournament Poker that's badly needed & long overdue. More consistent rules (see my "I have a question" thread today), look after our "Clients" (the players) better, give them added value that did not exist before, by persuading Sponsors to actually ADD money, get more people into our wonderful game, but most of all, try & give it some structure, some consistency, give the players a voice, & the Venues too, they have cases to argue, they also deserve & want dialogue with us (the players) to help improve the product they offer.

If we get the odd detail wrong along the way, well, that's inevitable, but I hope you'll continue to be broadly supportive.

Your and Pokerstars' thinking about the payout structure is completely reasonable.  If the vast majority are happy, it's working.  I'm not a member of APAT (yet!) but I think your aiming at different clientele from the regular 'circuit' is the right way to go, 100%.

BUT - Finals should always be an odd number.  You know why, there's no grey area about this - teaching amateurs and for-the-love-of-it players bad rules is not good; create players who play for the sheer competitive thrill of it, without bickering about payouts etc. by all means, but I hate to think of the next generation of TDs and homegamers thinking an odd-handed hand-for-hand is a good idea.  ;goodvevil;

Thanks Jen, thats an excellent point - I had completely overlooked it.

We shall address this - I cannot make the decision "solo", but will get to work on my colleagues immediately. It's amazing how THE most obvious things can get overlooked!

Hope you are well.

Yes, fine and dandy.  Well, dandy, at any rate.  Really glad the whole thing went smoothly for you guys - there are always going to be teething problems, but it looks to be a great success in the making.  Keep it up and good luck for all playing in the next one...

I was soooo stressed out, fear of failing I guess, but it went like clockwork, & everyone had a ball, they really did.

slowly slowly catchey monkey

tikay its a long long road you have started upon  as you are aware it will be full of trials and tribulations.

i applaude you for taking on this challenge as long as you remember rule number 1 is that we play this game because we love it and it is fun all the other rules will fall into place.

You cant please all of the people all of the time but your actions will do so much for the longterm gain of poker

A year is a long time but im sure it will fly by in no time so enjoy it as it goes

good luck and thanks

Thanks Dave. It's a damn bumpy road, too! But the downhill stretches are well cool.

im going through lots of problems with my local card room at the moment

the way the cardroom is being run is effecting the turnout and therefore the prizepool

for example on friday night we had 12 runners for a £50 rebuy

                     thurs night 23 runners for a £25 rebuy

                    wed  night 23 runners for a £20 rebuy


your actions through the APAT are not only going to affect things for the members but also poker players up and down the country

Flushy I don't know you well enough to tell if you are being sarcastic but your attitude towards the APAT really stinks. If you don't like it why not constructively critcize or keep quiet? Your "I know better than all of you" approach to responding is boring.

it may be boring, but its true... Flushy knows all

Guys, let's keep this debate nice & cool, eh?

Many would be offended by the arrogance inherent in "Not that hard is it?", (I had 4 PM's from Members who found it "not to their taste") but I want to move on & debate these things like grown-ups.

Thanks.

I quite like the top heavy prize structure. In fact it is one of the reasons why I reckon some people wouldturn up for it.

For 75£ you will never be a gazillionaire..it simply won't happen.  On the other hand it is "only" 75£ so it won't cost you a fortune either.
I would much rather play in a tourney that gives me 5k for first prize + a package AND  cool trophy for my 75£ and bubble out of it then I would play in a 75£ tourney that would justabout give me my 75£ back for finishing 50th. If it was a 10k£ event I would definetly like to see a different pay out structure.

Sure it is more about the honour and having a good time then the money in these events BUT you can't argue with this being a very cool first prize for amateur players without a big bankroll...I mean crickey;....most 75£ players will never get 5k + a seat at the EPT!

I can't wait for the scottish leg of this thing.

Thank you for the full and frank reply Tony. I was sure that there would be sound reasoning behind the payout, but could not figure those reasons out alone. I would be interested to see how the APAT members voted if they were to have the choice of several payout structures as we had in a poll on the forum about a year ago. Why not send each member an e-mail  with a few options(including Flushy's which I happen to like) It is quite possible that many APAT members do not understand payout structures as well as the people who discussed them here.

All poker players play to win money, recreational or professional. The object of the game is to win all the money and to suggest that many APAT members were simply "playing for the glory" rather than the cash would be a misconception imo. I for one, although I was low down on the reserve list had not thought of checking the payout structure, and I'm sure that there were many others who also did not check. Not everyone is prepared to speak out. I was just sure that it would be similar to the one which Flushy recommended as I know your feelings on flatter structures. If APAT live tourneys are to be a proving ground for budding players who aspire to play festival main events regularly, why not mirror all aspects of a festival main event including the payout ?

I am delighted at the success of APAT so far and congratulate all of you for your efforts. I will continue to support APAT fully and will take part in the voting process to help evolve the guidelines. I look forward to playing in future APAT events, both live and online.

I played in the event, finishing 24th, and i felt that the structure was excellent.The chance to win 4.5k and the entry to the ept was exceptional for a £75 event, especially when many players like me were playing for the thrill and experience of playing live.

The aims of the APAT should be encouraged and only constructive critasisms should be bought up for discussion as  i feel this unessecary sniping is doing a dis-service to the outstanding efforts of tony and his team.

It should be remembered this is a series of events for the amatuer player not players relying on making a consistent profit from their tournament play

I have to say that what some people THINK is sniping really isn't, it is people who see things that they think are wrong and are pointing them out.
I know Tikay feels wronged but i really think that he is also looking at this far too personally, nobody is attacking him, there are things that are not quite right YET and thru a process of feedback things should be looked at.
When you enter the public arena with this sort of thing it is a good thing that peeps are interested enough to discuss it no?

Fair point, well made. What i think is exciting is that these events are going to get even better with little tweaks here and there from what, on evidence of the first event, is a very sound foundation.

And of course constructive debate can only lead to improvement.

yes I would have to agree with that. The original post was surely not meant as a snipe (I certainly didn't read it as such) but more as a legitimate question...and an interesting one at that as this discussion shows.

Agreed ifm. But, sat where we are, do you really think "Its not that hard is it?", after we've worked our nuts off to get it right, is helpful?

We have answered every question asked of us, & done so politely & in a civil tone. But I am sure you can see why comments such as the one I quoted are, well, let's just say "not helpful".....!

Can we move on now, please, & stick to the issues.

Thanks.

Karabiner's opening Post, & subsequent rejoinder, were NOT sniping at all, they were a perfect example of how a debate should be conducted. I did specifically exempt Karabiner from such criticism.

And Jen (djinn) used her guile to make a valid point in a manner that nobody could argue with.

OK, I gotta train to catch. Happy Days!

Stick to the issues now, PLEASE, & keep it civil, & we can solve a lot of problems in short order.

when you come back...will you tell us what train it was?

Just by reading the posts, it looks like "It's not hard is it " comment was aimed at Ironsides "can i suggest though instead of just making posts being critical please offer solutions i m sure that the APAt team will listen", I just thought it was banter between them two, and not aimed at APAt. Especially as he was quoted in the post? Maybe I am just being naive.

I think people are taking people's posts far far too seriously.

James likes to "wind people up" just as I do - in most part it is friendly banter.

If you read something that you dont like the look of - why PM a mod/TK?? THEY HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO YOU KNOW. That is of course unless it is a serious matter - which this clearly was not.

Quite agree.  It gives the winner a bit of spending money at the EPT event too.  it wouldn't be nice to turn up at the event and not be able to afford to play any side games and have to sleep in a tent!

My main concern with the structure (which I wasn't aware of prior to reading the thread at the weekend, and which I couldn't find under the 'prizes' section of the APAT site - a minor point as I didn't get through the ballot) is that it is contradictory to the general sentiment for flatter payout structures at UK live events.  As APAT is also intended to be a representative body for the amateur player, I think this sends out the wrong signal to the UK casinos - its almost an encouragement to them to keep the top heavy payout structures which we generally see, and I don't want this to be seen by them as 'what the ordinary player wants.'

I'm also intrigued by the fact that this structure didn't prompt talk of a deal at the APAT event, as I'm fairly sure it would have encouraged one in a Festival event.  Perhaps the APAT players, being largely a group of online players, are used to playing out events without dealing or maybe its the fact that the amounts involved aren't on the same scale as a Festival event, so a deal is worth maybe a few hundred quid rather than several thousand.

I also find it unusual that the live and online APAT events have such different payout structures, as a great deal of effort has gone into pointing out that they count equally with regard to the overall ranking points league.  Admittedly there's no reason why the two have to be consistent, but I'd naturally assumed that they would be.

Overall, I think APAT is doing a lot right, and I'm very supportive of it.  I don't expect to agree 100% with everything they do and having a different payout structure to one I think is better is not going to stop me playing (or trying to) in their events.  After all, the payout issue only really becomes relevant as you get close to winning one of them and, provided that the players know up front what the situation is (and Tikay and Tighty have both said that they did in this case) then its upto the player to adjust to them in how they play the event.

Sheriff

It made me laugh  ;goodvevil;

 ;iagree; 

I have a feeling that there was always an enormous chip-leader during the final until it became three handed.

This may well have precluded any suggestions of a deal.

However had there been about equal chips four or five handed I for one would certainly tried to deal had I been in the position. £10K for first prize and £300 for fourth and fifth, it's a no-brainer to make a deal imo.

As I said in my report of the event, which will be on the main page, there was a completely different atmosphere at this event from any Festival event I have been to. I characterised a festival event as sometimes having an air of "jaded cynicism" with nipping and bitching and occasionally a sense of quiet desperation. At the weekend there was a real sense of excitement and it was clear that people's motivations were in many cases different.

For example I did a little "rookie teach in" on etiquette and procedures an hour before the comp in which I established that around 20 of the players had never played live before. To my mind if APAT can be increasing the size of the live player base in the UK then it's doing something right, especially if that first experience is fun, they are looked after and they want to return for more which many said they did.

There's an interview with the winner going up on blonde soon too...the guy had never been to a casino before!

This event was about having a great time first and foremost and I too never heard a grumble about the payout, or any talk of wanting to deal. Yet there were also experienced amateur players there too...Suited Jock for example is an excellent experienced player, Gavin Butler who won the event in which Micky Wernick won the rankings at Luton last year played. These type of players were perfectly happy with the payout. At least they never told us they weren't!

I dare say in time we might make a tweak here and there but to understand the top heavy payout, not necessarily to agree with it, you have to view this series in a different light...gold/silver/bronze medals for the top three and playing to win, not grip onto 6th waiting for another to bust out...old amateur style if you like .

Talking to Ironside, when he would let me talk not listen, I know the payout affected his strategy on the final table as he went for it early to put himself in a position to win. I think the finalists all adapted well to what the payout meant for the way they should play it    
 

It did get to roughly equal chips four handed with average stack 10x bb and still no one talked deal or even mentioned it tongue in cheek!

Having followed the thread most of the way thru it was close all the way - when they got 4 handed they all had virtually equal chips (approx 350-400k) with blinds at 15k/30k.

ScottM and the eventual winner clashed in a big pot with AK o/s vs JJ and missed which would have given him a big chip lead with only 3 left but it wasn't to be.

This is exactly my point with the "tour", I don't wish to take anything away from APA as it looked a good time was had by all, and a fantastic comp had by all.
But the APAt site does not say anywhere the payout structure percentages, so how could people discuss?
Now, any lowish freezeout should follow APAt's example and have a structure like this

50% 1st
20% 2nd
10% 3rd
3.3% 4th-9th

For 120 runners? If I had suggested that on the Poll 8 months ago I would have got severely chastised.
I am not saying it is wrong, as it has it's merits for a small buy in freezeout, but when I tested something similar, I nearly had a riot on my hands. Not having an increase between 4th and 9th alters the game completely, as the lower chip stacks have to go for gold on any rags to have a chance of making the increase. Why do i always sound so negative grrrrr it's not meant to be negative, just concerned.

the site does mention payout structure, and apparently has done for a while. When i first heard of the payout structure about a week before the event i thought someone was pulling my leg so i went to the site and the details are there. So the info has been there for all to see well in advance.

It was on the website and sent in a communication by email to all players the week before the event concerning the comp, timings, structure, payout etc

http://apat.com/prizes.html

Where? If it does I apologize completely, but it must be in an obscure place?

So you only get the communication if you have entered? Is that not too late?

APAT members get frequent communications


The particular one I am referring to was specifcally in advance of the first Event. Customer service  8)

I best pay my £10 and join then to see how I am going to be affected?????

The trouble with bringing stuff up is that it is seen as sniping.............

It looks as if you are happy with the payout structure Richard, i hope you poll the members before the next one.

It appears then that you only got this if you were actually in the event, surely all should get this sort of info?

http://www.apat.com/termsandconditions.html

An illustrative payout is on the link above on the apat website

Actually dik9 has a point, It should be more prominently displayed...I'll ask the powers that be to make sure it is.

but it was on the website though!!


As to communications, regular communication emails to all and there was an "arrangements for the weekend" letter to all competitiors last week. I don't see that as anything other than good manners

As tikay has said, there will be a members committee appointed to reflect the views of the members back to the board. These positions are to be elected in the coming months. If they wish to poll, perfectly fine!

I do apologize then....Sorry

but who reads T&C's :D

Its a fair point dik9....I'll have a word

Tighty, on another issue - with regards to the "ballot" that took place

I would of thought it correct to also email those people who DID NOT get into the event.

Just a comment, not ment in a "gripe" at all.

I dont envy you in your role!

I would like to know who was in the draw and where and when it happened, who was the independant chap etc.
Not because i think it was rigged but because i think it should have been made public.

As one of the 'more experienced' live game players among those who attended the 1st APA tour  event,I'd like to add my thoughts to the payout debate.

I have always backed flatter payout structures, in the bread and butter daily casino based re-buy and frezzeout tournaments. This spreading of the prize money will allow more players to cash in a greater number of events thus maintaining an interest in turning up for more tournaments,therefore keeping a larger pool of players to maintain liquidity in the live game.

The APA event in the Broadway differed fundamentally, in that it DID have a large percentage of new players,who, like playing the lottery, were only interested in the main prize,along with the medals and money for the runners up.

In my mind this was pure poker, which is even more top heavy i.e. winner takes all, with the addition of a return if you were not quite up to the mark.

It should also  be noted that even though the payout was written up for all to see,at all times no mention of the disparity in prizemoney was heard and no deal was mentioned. I have an idea the notion of dealmaking was beyond the ken of many of the players.

I had lunch with Matthew(suited jock), Scott (Scott) And Cristian(Brainn) on sunday and was both surprised and glad that, for this 'one off event' no carping about the top heavy payout was made.

So yes if the were a weekly/monthly series of games, I'd certinly want a flatter payout, cos of the need to make occasional returns to fund continual entry fees.

If the tour brings more new players into the game, then its OK, as an occasional one off to play these type of payouts,and of course it couldn't be maintained  over a long period.

Finnally, one point, if you are playing a final table of 10 players it seems churlish to only pay 9.

But how can you say that you are happy for the APAT to run all their payouts on one level but you want all the other tournaments you play on a regular basis to be different, a more flatter structure?

The APAT wants to be the voice of the recreational/amateur player by taking their views to the casinos and Gaming Commission and trying to get them to change the way they run poker. They cant run their tournaments as a "one off" and preach to the rest that they should change theirs too otherwise the "one off" becomes the "norm".......

Exactly ! One of the main objectives of APA is to present a model that should be an example to casino cardrooms.

This includes blind structure and payout structure, or certainly should do imo.

Accrington Stanley

My point precisely

just an observation, and obviously those who were on the final table can speak for themselves, but I am hardly surprised there was no talk of a deal when it has been made pretty clear that APAT were against the idea of deals, and were going as far as putting steps in place to make deal making difficult. 

It would've taken a brave man (or woman) to be the one to step up and say "who wants to do business then?"

What is wrong with deals ? Not sure I have ever played live when some sort of deal wasn't done.

Hi Ian,

I had cornflakes for my breakfast! :D  just in case you wanted to know!

I'm sorry, but we cannot run a business by a committe of several thousand posters, 99% of whom are non members, on several forums across the UK.  It's not going to happen because it would cripple our ability to make decisions and it's just not necessary.  You will have to trust us on the functional everyday stuff and utilise your member vote on the more important policy matters.  But no, we will not be publishing our entire member database.   Are you trying to set up the ATAP or something?

Please bear in mind that APAT is under two months old.  In that time we have proved ourselves able to bring some major sponsors and value to the table and run a very good event.  We have sent and responded to thousands of emails and forum posts.  And, perhaps surprisingly to some, we have not absconded with the membership fees.

In starting, we had to put certain principles in place prior to recruiting our first member.  Feedback and thought is required before implementing sweeping change to those principles.  We are open minded but aware the membership might allow us to change things once.  They are unlikely to be forgiving if we continue to tinker and change and morph into the very establishments that we are trying to improve upon.

Fair?

Cheers,

Des.

I played in the first event and finished 14th (had an accident with pocket 3's).  I think that the large first prize and seat to the EPT actually added to the event.  This was a chance for players who do not make their living from poker to play with the big boys at the EPT, thats what I wanted to win and I was not too bothered about the minor places.  I take the point some guys have made about travelling expenses.  I only had to travel from Wolverhampton so no hotel bill or flight fare needed, but for others like the Scottish guys or the guy from Cornwall (sorry I have forgot your name mate) it would have cost more.  However I intend to be in Scotland for event 2 (great news about the increased capacity) and will treat the weekend as a great social occasion with the chance to win an EPT seat.  The APAT atmosphere was truely brilliant this weekend, I really felt part of a club of like minded poker lovers who wanted to have fun and play the game hard but with a smile.  We may be part of the Amateur Poker Association but there was nothing "Amateur" about the standard of play or how the event was run, first class.

Yes, this is a very good point Matt.

I certainly do not envisage casinos introducing this type of payout structure per se, just as I do not see them removing £10 rebuys with 12 minute levels from their everyday schedules.  

However, I would hope that to gain an APAT endorsement, at some point in the future, casinos would run regular deepstack tournaments with added value and a decent structure to give players a more regular and entertaining experience.  

We will look at the payout structure, as part of our overall post evaluation of the Birmingham event.  However, as I said in my earlier post it is important that any change is entirely right prior to us pushing the button.  

Cheers,

Des.

Name and Shame :D

On a different subject, when will APAT have a voice with the commission, and how do you feel about the daily charge casino's can now ask of the poker players on top of registration fees?

i.e. Walk into casino free £10 to enter cardroom £10+£1 reg fee, in fact the charge is not capped so they can charge anything.

Only a matter of time before Grosvenor or Gala introduce a blanket charge

Your thoughts?

Well, there you have it - a whole range of views. Largely - largely - those who played have been wholly supportive, they saw or see no problem with the Payout Structure, or indeed, much else. Whereas the potential/actual problems with the Payout Structure seem to cause problems with those who did not play. But the former includes so many "recreational" players, while the latter is more inclined to seasoned & experienced players. I'm not entirely sure what to make of that!

But I hope everyone can see that these things are subjective - nobody can say for sure they are right, or wrong. It's wholly subjective.

We shall, increasingly, look for guidance from our Members. We believe  - & the feedback you have seen confirms this - they have been happy with what's happened so far, & so if we can continue to keep them happy, we have fulfilled our promise.

Now we have to move on, & I am sure the blondes & others continue to follow our progress closely.

Those who maybe are worried that this payout structure is going to be the blueprint that the APAT want all the other casinos and cardrooms to follow.


That we will squire - who needs Eastenders and Corrie on the coconut box when we got our very own soap opera right here ;)

So the APAT will be run like the ISO in business terms? Casinos and cardrooms will put forward for an accreditation by the APAT and provided the casino meets the standards of the APAT then you will endorse them to allow them to hold added value tournaments?

I think we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves here! One step at a time. I think the whole phrasing of your Post sits uncomfortably with me - "allow them" etc. That's premature, speculative, & even if accurate, is not the way I prefer to conduct business. My preferred route is to engage in dialogue.

In the old days when there were three prizes 60%/30%/and10% nobody used to grumble either.

Does that mean that it was right ?

It is a matter of education, and players with little experience are hardly likely to speak out are they ?

And as for there being no mention of a deal, well Tikay had stated on here that you would "do everything possible" to prevent a deal being done, so little wonder that nobody piped up.

Hello all!

I never thought my first post here would be getting in the middle of a hot debate.  But I'm not writing to flame anyone here.  I just want to express an opinion, and you can take it or leave it.

I was lucky enough to play in Birmingham this weekend and thoroughly enjoyed myself.  I thought the tournament as a whole was very well run and I'm sure there wasn't one person there who didn't enjoy themselves.  The structure with 10,000 starting chips and 40 minute levels made for some great poker, and I hope this structure remains for all future events.

As for the payout structure, I'm going to be a little picky, but nothing really different to what has been suggested by some other posters already.  I think it is very important to have a top-heavy payout, especially with the top 3 places, just as you see in many tournaments (especially online).  This makes people play for the win rather than just sit back content with a decent payout for a lower place.  However, I would say on this occasion the 1st place was a bit TOO top heavy.  I mean £4000 plus an EPT package for the winner, then £1800 for 2nd is a huge difference.  I think it's fair to say most people would gladly take the EPT place on it's own.  I also think it's unfair to have the same prize for 4th as for 9th.  I believe there was a gripe made that the guy who finished 4th got the same as someone who got knocked out 4 hours earlier.  A bit harsh, but nonetheless true.  So to summarise, I would prefer to see the structure amended as follows:

• A reduction in the cash prize for 1st place (say EPT package + £2000)
• A payout for 10th place (assuming 10 table FT)
• An increasing payout structure for 10th to 2nd

As mentioned, this is only intended as an opinion and not intended as a flame to anyone, so take with a pinch of salt if you wish.  It is also not intended as sour grapes as I finished nowhere near the money, so x% of zero is still zero  :(

Whatever the payout structure, it will still not stop me attending future APAT events.

Apologies - maybe i didn't phrase my post correctly. I was referring to Des saying that the APAT would "endorse" casinos and was asking what was meant by that.

 :hello: and  ;welcome; MAF

Welcome to blonde :D

It would not be right to get too far ahead of ourselves here, and I will not be drawn further on this at this time, beyond saying it would seem to make sense to recognise venues that support APAT principles.  We anticipate bringing thousands of new players into the live game and their needs will need to be catered for regularly and conveniently.

Regards,

Des.

Ok, fair enough :)up

On a different subject, when will APAT have a voice with the commission, and how do you feel about the daily charge casino's can now ask of the poker players on top of registration fees?

i.e. Walk into casino free £10 to enter cardroom £10+£1 reg fee, in fact the charge is not capped so they can charge anything.

Only a matter of time before Grosvenor or Gala introduce a blanket charge

Your thoughts?

Sorry to push this one as I think it's quite important

Hi Rich,

Not my department, but I cannot see APAT publishing a position on that until we have thoroughly researched the variables.   

Regards,

Des.

Good first post...and welcome to the forum MAF!

Just wondered how far APAT /APL is down the line?

You have tied up deals with Pokerstars and PokerPlayer Mag for APL
You have now got significant members
You have had your inaugrial comp
The site is all up and running
Spokespeople have been assigned

Have you got any contacts with the Gaming Commission?
If so who, and will they listen?

I cannot play any of these events, but do I need to join to find out what is happening in the poker world?

And what do you have for breakfast when you run out of cornflakes ?

And can you reveal all your existing contacts and potential contacts and also every other potential avenue you may be going down in the forseeable future as this will help me in setting up a rival organisation.

Many thanks.

You are barking up the wrong tree Kev


If APA is doing what I wanted to do, and it is a success, why should I try and do something and confuse the issue.
Just wondered how far the Association was as oppossed to the tour?

No ... Just barking ;)

Eh? I offered an alternative payout structure? How constructive do i need to be?




Please read below Tikay.






Waaahey we have a winner!



I am not going to post anymore on the APAT thread's i get accused of sniping, as do all the posters who disagree with what is said. This time i even pot forward an alternate payout structure and was told i wasn't being constructive (i don't know your members but from the responses i have had no-one has told me they prefer the APAT structure to the one i suggested)

I will still continue to suggest idea to APAT but i won't be doing it on here, i think they have a good idea, i know Richard and Tikay well and met Des at BB3. I want to see this thing succeed, to do that we cant all be 'yes men' i know i am not eligible to be a member of APAT however i feel i have more in common with the APAT members than circuit pro's

I am off out to play in casino tonight that always has a friendly atmosphere, a good structure (1500 chips for £20) a 75-150 level and it adds money to the prizepool. Aswell as treating players with respect. At the moment i hope APAT doesn't suggest anything to them! Is that sniping or is that being honest?



P.S. Tikay, tell us about the Train....

Is that a snipe at his anorak? ;goodvevil;

no it wouldn't be...I asked Tikay when he said he had to catch a train to tell us about it when he got back...I am guessing FLushy is an anxious as I am for a good train story.

Fascinating debate. Just read the diverse view points.
I played in the event, it was my first ever time in a casino, and my first ever live game that hasn't involved half a million
all-ins.
I got up at 4am on Saturday morning and drove all the way from Cornwall to play. And here's why;
1) I knew the standard would be high and I wanted to find out just how good or bad a player I was.
2) I wanted to experience live play in a casino.
3) I hoped to make some new poker friends.
As things turned out, I did pretty well. I made Day 2 and was chuffed to bits.
At no time during the entire weekend did the payout structure cross my mind. I wasn't there for the money.
In my view, the APAT was set up to offer the likes of me a chance to play proper poker against proper poker players. And this it achieved with flying colours. Every member of the team went out of their way to make me feel welcome. Every player I spoke to was friendly. People made new friends, of that I am sure.
On Day 2, things went well for me and I made the final table.
Did my gameplan or attitude change now that there was money involved?
No, it certainly did not.
Yes, we all play to win. And we play to win money, that's the nature of the game. But on the world's ladder of poker, I stand on the bottom rung. I had made the top 10 of English Amateur players, and whilst that won't pay my mortgage, I wouldn't have swapped it for a thousand pounds. As Mr Kendall said on the night, 'that will never be taken away from you'.
I fully understand the reasoning behind the payout structure, and I also understand the views of being equally rewarded for 4th through 9th positions. But personally, it wouldn't have mattered. Just being able to say I was 4th in England, instead of 9th in England would have been enough for me.
I finished 9th. The money I won was a complete bonus. If the prizes had been a box of chocolates down to a stick of chewing gum, I would still have gone to Birmingham to play.
And that's my viewpoint, as a player in the event.
Guarantee me a seat in the next one, I guarantee I will be there. Whatever the payout may be.

flushy thanks for your constructive post on the structure even if the banter was miss read,

richard and tony have both said they didnt hear any complaints about the payouts this is correct

however they did hear me bring up the subject of it being top heavy and thatit needed to be flatterend for future events

just to allow people to cover costs (espically for the euriopean event)

i for one liked the fact it was a top heavy payout as allthough i am still new to poker

i did think that amongst the final 9 i was amongst the most comfotaable in the enviroment.

i LOVED the flat bottom where 9-4 got the same payment it encouraged poker

very similiar to 2 tables out in the vic when 18-10 get the same money people play to get chips

as if they bust outnext or in 2 hours time they are getting the same money

so i would like to see a payout simliar to a normal fessie where each seat gets a ladder climb

as people are then waiting for people to bust allowing the rich to keep getting richer

so my view is less top heavy so that the finalists are not out of pocket for the weekend

but keep it flat at the bottom to encourage people to play

As they didn't pay 116th place at APAT 1, I left empty handed. What has not been debated for APAT 2 (on this post) is the fact that event 2 will in all likelyhood have 5 times as many runners. So, how many places should be paid if there are say 600 entrants. Top 10% would seem reasonable wouldn't it?

10% would be my guess.

Was there 100 runners for APAT 1? So that was about 10% prizes.

I didn't get drawn to play the event in Birmingham. If I had I wouldn't have checked the payout structure before playing because APA are setting out their stall to provide the best tournament structure for the player. I'd have turned up and paid my £75 and then later I'd have been horrified when I saw the payout structure.

Flushies suggested payout structure (which, dispite the (not hard" comment is still offering a constructive alternative) with an EPT package for 1st place still makes it effectively a very top heavy payout and certainly something to make everyone play for the win rather than play just to cash. 50% for 1st in a 120 seat tourney is not what I'm for. if it were £20 / £30 I might agree but for £75 I think a fair final table payout isn't too much to ask for.  I look forward to an APA vote on the matter. It may well go against me by the looks of this thread.

please resist the temptation to accuse those in favour of a flatter structure of sniping or being unconstructive. It's a fair point and however it's phrased their (our) opinions on the matter should be welcome.

I have consistently welcomed all feedback and will continue to do so.

Hope you can make/get into the Scottish event Adam

I could not agree more wholeheartedly Adam, that is exactly how I feel.

For some reason I have been thinking that this is starting to sound like Animal Farm.

"Four legs good two legs bad" closely followed by "Four legs good two legs better"

I played in the APAT event in Birmingham and finshed 6th. The payout structure never bothered me. It is an amateur event, we are not paying mega bucks to enter a competition. It cost us 75 pound and 1st prize was definately worth winning. 2nd prize was enough money and the falt bottom prize for 9th through to 4th (or whatever it was) was absolutley great. As people have said before me it encouraged poker. No one was haging on thinking HHmmmmm if I hang on and fold this AK that fella in seat 4 has hardly got any chips and I can wait for him to go out to get an extra 100 quid in prize money. If you were there and played you will know there was no issure (with anyone I could see) with the payout.

If you want big payouts go and play in the EPT events. These APAT events gives us amateur players big prizes, worthy prizes that we would never normally get a sniff at - a chance of winning for the measly entry fee of £75.

And for me it was not about the money - I just wanted that big medal around my neck to walk into work on the Monday and say ' Wehey I am the English Amateur Poker Champion' - and the trip to Copenhagen would of been a great bonus.....

Unfortunatley I never got one..... Does anyone have one to sell..... HAHA......

You could still have all the medals and EPT trip and a great first prize with a flatter structure though.

Heck, i'd love to win a seat to an EPT event and the title of amateur champion and if I made the final at an apat event i'd be trying my hardest to win but that doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a flatter prize structure too!

The point is that APAT and APA are running side by side.

Personally I am more interested in APA who pledge to set standards in European and especially UK cardrooms.

I suppose there lies the difference. I just wanted to play poker with like minded people and with the chance of winning a excellent prize and title.

As Trevor said earlier ( I think its Trevor) 'I would do the same again if the prize was a stick of chewing gum' -  although i prefer Lolipops....

I am certainly for the top heavy structure... Gives an amateur the chance of winning a prize that is really worth winning.

I bet Daniel still hasnt come down from the ceiling..

I'm firmly in the flatter structure camp & Flushies proposal looks fine to me.

How can anyone justify such a top heavy structure when a guy who busts out 4th gets the same as the fella in 9th 4 & a half hours later & misses his flight in the process thus having to fork out more dosh to get home.

I also feel as a member I am entitled to my opinion on this board without fear of  being accused of criticising those involved. Thats more likely to make me not renew than a difference of opinion on the payout structure.

For all those who played and enjoyed the event, great, it sounds like a resounding success but it doesn't mean the next one can't be better with a little tinkering  :)up

You don't think it's relevant to let the people in the draw know they were actually in the draw??

You published a list of 195 members already and i assume a list approaching 400 for the next one.......
As i said to you at Walsall i am asking questions of a body that is trying to represent me, i think i have that right?, i am not against it, i'm a member!!!!!!!
Flippancy does not help anyone i'm afraid.................................................

Hi Ian,

All players who had signed up for membership in line with the process were in the draw.  That was stated previously.  The days of tournament entry by ballot are behind us, so we will not need to publish player lists in future.

Flippant, me?  I didn't know you were such a sensitive soul!

Regards,

Des.

As much as it pains me to say so - I agree with Ironside.

The flat payout for the bottom places to encourage more play, but less of a gap at the top with the difference redistributed to boost the lower places seems like a subtle but good variation.

But saying that, I don't think it's a major problem and something which can easily wait until the APAT membership can be consulted properly. I would like it if the payout was changed but I don't think it needs to until the second season.

I haven't got much to compare the tournament with, but I felt it went excellently - the structure and the organisation were second to none, if the APA Tour continues in this vein with only minor tinkering in future then I see it only ever being an undisputed success.

Yes i know that is what was said, if you feel that is good enough then it's good enough.

I'm not at all sensitive or sarcastic as it happens, see you in Jockland!

Great news....I enjoyed having a laugh with you at BB3 and it will be great to catch up in Scotland.

Cheers,

Des.

This is not strictly true. The person who finished 4th got more than the person who finished 9th. 4th place got a lot more ranking points in the leaderboard. and that prize for the winner of the leaderboard is not to be sniffed at.

I hope with all the sniping and griping thats going on the team at the APAT do not get despondant and continue to remain upbeat and do a great job.

Despondent? No way! And the vast majority of the feedback is great stuff. Yes, there's been a bit of mischievous sniping from one or two, has been since we launched, but overall, 95% of it has been superb. I am offline much of today, as I was yesterday (I have to work these days!) so will catch up on this thread later, or tomorrow, but.....

I really need everyone on this thread to try & see that it's just NOT as easy as one might think. Everyone (almost) has a view at one extreme or the other - as they are entitled to - but we have to accept that others have views too, & they - & you - are all entitled to their views.

This thread demonstrates it beautifully. Players who think Event 1 was perfect. Others who think it was just nonsense. THAT'S the problem. Doing what's right by everyone. Doing whats right by the recreational players (which, I must say, I think we did), & recognizing that one size does not fit all.

Is the answer somewhere between the 2 views? No, not necessarily, though in practice, it will be, but really, we should travel one road or nother, in my opinion.

It's the need to explain the concept that has been so awkward. Everyone at Brum last weekend soon realised what the concept was. They had a fun weekend - as I had pledged they would. Those that were not present - in some cases, as seats were not available - they form, at present, the view that we got it wrong. Who's to know who is right or wrong. It is NOT that simple!

I have said - time & time again, & repeated it since the weekend - we ARE open to changing the payout structure, if the Members think we need to. But read this thread, with an open mind, & you'll see that it just ain't a simple solution, because the range of views is so wide. Victory won't go to he who shouts loudest, or gives the smart-arse replies, it will be achieved by working our way there bit by bit, by sheer tenacity & hard work. Now, let's see if we can move this forward.

All the above applies to the Live Events, designed for a certain type of player. That, relatively - was the easy bit....! But now we have to look at wider issues in Tournament Poker. The "A" part of APAT, if you like. Now it WILL start to be "interesting"......

Have a good day. I'm off to The Broadway, working again (all "work", eh?) overnight. Then, tomorrow, as a treat & sort of day off, I'm off to The Sportsman in London for the £500 freeze. Straight home after that, on Friday morning early-wurly, then back to London on Saturday for the Sportsman Main Event. Prob stay down there, as I'm doing Poker Night Live on Sunday - the last edition from the current studio, I think. So bear with me if I'm not Online as much as I need to be to deal with issues during the next few days. Thanks.

Can I just state that I view 99% of all posts on APAT as good healthy feedback and debate. It's pretty easy to spot the (very) occasional snide remark and we are all big enough to deal with those.

Flushy took a bit of stick above.  He could maybe work on his communications skills a bit from from time to time but I don't doubt that he wants to see APAT succeed and I for one would be sorry to see him stop posting on the subject.  And no, I'm not brown nosing him.  That is what I genuinely think.

Des.

A synchronised posting competition anyone?

It appears to me as though the APAT members are split into 2 distinct groups:

(1) Those who play poker for the fun of it, they attend purely out of the social aspect of the game - they don't care about the payout structure as they are happy just to play for the fun of it. Most of the people who attended the first event at Broadway seem to fall into this catagory.

(2) Those who play poker to make a profit, they are there mainly to win as much money as possible but will still have some fun to boot - they are worried about the top heavy structure and would prefer if it were flatter for future tourneys especially as they will probably have more runners. A lot of the members who didnt attend the event at the broadway but do play tournaments on a regular basis seem to fall in this catagory.

So if the members of group (1) are there purely for the fun of it and to them the money is irrelevant then would they object if the structure is changed to suit the members who fall into group (2)?

I would consider myself as more of a social player, who generally plays for the fun of it - but this does not mean that I would be happy with  "2 balloons and a comic" as a prize after sitting at a poker tablle for 2.5 days.

At the end of the day this is a £75 buyin tournament. If as is being encouraged with a "league system", you are expected to play in more than one throughout the country, you have to factor in expenses to this. This starts to get very expensive, and a placing of at least 4th is required to cover these costs. I dont believe this is sustainable.

Everyone who plays poker is somewhat motivated by the finanical rewards. Otherwise they would play snap.

I played in Birmingham and come away with £300. That worked out to £23 an hour in my book, and thats not bad. Forget about your expenses you cant count that this is an amateur event.

The top heavy prize to me means that if I ever (sorry when) win one of these events I will get a tremendous payout that will make the whole thing even more special for a £75 buy in.

I hope it stays as it is........

I’ve been holding back on posting on the payout structure of the first APAt event as most who have commented on it have been either ridiculed or accused of sniping (in my view anyway)

I was not fortunate enough to gain a seat for the event and to be totally honest I now believe that wasn’t such a bad thing.  If I had been present and the poker gods had smiled on me enough to get me to the final table, to then find out that after MANY hours of play I would still get the same as a 9th place finisher as a 4th placer, I would be damn well miffed - putting it very politely!!  (And not mentioning about 10th getting nothing as Jen has brought this up already) this payout would not cover the majority of peoples expenses for the weekend and as such I think it’s plain wrong IMO. 4th getting 3.3% and first getting 50% with an added 8k package I believe is ludicrous. Flushy’s payout structure was a fairer, or take 10-15% off the top and add it to the bottom to still make it a flatter structure!

The general gist of the APAt idea from what I have read is to give amateur poker players a taste of the big festival event experience at amateur buy-ins, this has been stated again and again.  Why then does the payout structure not follow this?  “It was published on the APAT site” I have read on this thread, and apparently there were no complaints, well I looked for the payout structure before the draw was made and I could not find it anywhere (something that is also being addressed I believe) possibly there would have been more comments if it was easily available?

On the subject of no deals being mentioned, is it surprising there was no mention when it was made painfully clear that they were not allowed?  and measures put in place to ensure that it would be as hard as possible to achieve (Prizes paid by cheque) Also how many people have had played live enough to know how to go about making a deal, from the reports there were many first time live players and as such they are not necessarily confident enough to stand up and say what they want, or to disagree with the structure.

I was told that I was a typical APAt member, but the more I read the more I think I’m not, I will not play a tourney that I know I will be out of pocket playing unless I finish top 3, I’ve now decided I will not play any of the events unless I have no real travel or accommodation expenses, which could mean I never play any of them…. Shame.

I just want to make it clear that I love the APAt idea and think it is something that could work well for us amateurs, but I do think there are a few basic things wrong.

Teaching new players that this is what to expect breeds a new set of future Pro's to know no better IMO.

Just becasue we are all memebers of the APAT does not meen we are new to poker. I am not new to poker. I have been playing for years. I have been playing Crib, Nap, Brag, all forms of poker for longer than I care to remember recreationally. I have been playing online for a couple of years. I know online they have different payout structures and it really annoys me when you play an MTT for 5 hours and get just above your buy in back when you go out just as you get to the money.

If you finished in the top 8% (i think) you got 4 times your buy in back. To me this was superb...

In any tournament someone will go out 1st someone will win and someone will always bubble....

As for covering expenses I dont get this......Why cant you treat it as a jolly and not a money making trip.......

I think soon players will want the APAT to put us all up in hotels.... HHmmmmm

I don't believe I implied all APAt members where new to poker, but I did state that many were new to LIVE play (as has been reported) and IMO as such are not necessarily happy about standing up and saying they weren't happy with the structure.

When I want to have a 'jolly' I play the Blonde Bash or P4C event, that's what they are for! Just because this was a specific armature event does not mean that it should be played any different. We all play poker for different reasons, I may not be a pro but I still play poker to make money, not to lose it.

Putting us up in hotels? hmmmmm, I don't think you can seriously say anyone is going over the top with the suggestions. We have opinions, and we ARE entitled to them!

Paid out by cheque?!?!??!?!

Hmmmmmmmm,,, I would want cash myself.

9th the same as 4th?  Surely this cannot be right?

This debate is seemingly endless as, as said many times previous in this thread, peoples opinions are going to differ and this is partially down to the different reasons we all play poker and what we hope to get out of it.
I entered the tournament with full knowledge of the payout structure and as such wouldn't dream of complaining about it. In fact I applaud the fact that APAT have tried something a bit different to the norm after taking advice PokerStars amongst others.
Having said that, for me, in future a flatter structure would be more appropriate, and I'm sure when the time comes all members shall be consulted.
The weekend was undoubtably a HUGE success and was certainly one of the best weekends I've enjoyed this year. However if they'd have paid on Flushys structure I'd have been over £400 better off plus the first place finisher would be just as happy.
I think that maybe APAT was a victim of their own success this weekend. Everyone was enjoying themselves so much, that if they did have issue with the structure they could easily put it to the back of their minds.

Having just chatted with Dan (Mr 1st Place) and having now read all 8 long pages of pros and cons, fors and againsts, good ideas, bad ideas and all funny comments. I feel that i should throw my thoughts into the cauldron.

Having been placed 2nd and received £1800 a reasonable sum for 2 days of headaces and difficult decisions i thought the sturcture was fine. Remember this is a new organisation, where over time, trial and error it will always evolve, change and one day everybody will be happy and compllaint free. Like the organisers have stated our views are what help then grow and develop. 

In relation the prize structure, it was plain to see, prior to paying your £75 entry. If you didnt like it then, why pay and play. Like everybody said this is an Amateur organisation. Some people will have a clue about all aspects of poker, some wont. There were new players, not some new and some experienced players. It was all conducted with good spirit and i commed you all for that. It was refeshing to sit in a tourney without any bickering of any sort. I have played numerous tourneys/ events and are frustrated by the 'know-it alls' who constantly bark orders. This is a major reason newbies are scared off.

As everone has said the final table was played by individuals, im pretty sure no-one was thinking ' oh god he's just gone all in...i'll fold me a/k and hope somebody else calls him and knocks them out. True the money from 9-4 was the same i think...so it made no sense to play scared. Even when it went down to 4 handed it was still played by every individual. Look at headfs up......2 hands!

Plus the idea of a deal was jokingly discussed, but we all agreed that we wanted to play for first prize. This represented the heart and soul of the APA. Plus you cant split checks with strangers!!!!!! They may bounce!!!!

My only moan like many others was not giving 10th place some cash. But hey, everyone knew the structure.

I agree with many who have expressed their views. in all this was a solid event which over the two days was conducted and carried out with solid professionalism.

Long live the APA!

Dougla7878 (aka Mark, Mr 2nd place)

Oh plus......Fkying Pig..... you can buy my silver medal off me for one million dollars!!!!

I got a solution!
I came 9th, so I'll give the guy who came 4th 50 quid and a balloon and we'll call it quits!
On a serious note, if everyone posted their ideal payout structure there'd barely be two the same.
This was, after all, the inaugral event for APAT.
Success was achieved, perfection takes time.

I am not sniping or griping & resent the fact that you are insinuating that I am just because I have a different opinion from some & am prepared to say so.

With all due respect I think you should take a little time to browse this forum & get to know the dynamic of it before you start coming out with comments like the one above.

 ;iagree;

Many reasons to play even though you think the payout structure is not 100% fair and how you would like it. It preety obvious the strucutre was too top heavy, just a matter of time till its tweaked.

Let people discuss the various merits of payout structures, without telling them to dont play if your not happy with it line.

Reading this thread is quite interesting. I'm a member of APAT and really like the philosophy behind it. I've also corresponded with Tikay a couple of times, who has been very courteous in responding, despite his hectic schedule.

I'm also new to this forum, and would rather lurk in the background, at least until I'm more familiar with the forum dynamics. Whilst I'm posting, I have to say I think the "Dusk Til Dawn" thread by Rob Yong is probably the best thread I've read on any forum, since I started getting involved in poker forums since January 2003.

One thing I am unimpressed with this particular forum is the group-think mentality. I sincerely hope that if I have a difference of opinion, that people don't take that as a personal insult. I'm somewhat eccentric, especially in some of my beliefs. For instance, I believe you can only truly be friends with someone after you've seen all sides of them. My bitterest arguments have been with my closest friends. There's no ass-kissers in my small group of friends, just people I can trust with my life.

Getting to the point I was going to make. I intend to play in as many APAT events as possible, including Las Vegas. Obviously, anyone else who is truly interested in acquiring the most championship points will be trying to stick to the schedule as well. Even at this level, it's still going to amount to significant expenses. Now you might have done well in the last event at Birmingham and think to yourself that you've done well, and would like the payout structure to remain unchanged. If you make only one final table in the whole schedule, excluding a win, you may find yourself out of pocket at the end of the year. The APAT live tournaments in my mind, and correct me if I'm off the target with this, is about making poker accessible to the beginner (and non-professional seasoned players), by hosting affordable tournaments, with an opportunity to take your game to a higher level. If the payout remains top heavy, it becomes unsustainable to complete the APAT tour. Like most amateur players, I don't have a lot of cash to throw around. I don't except (or want) APAT to turn into a freeroll, but I do expect to be reasonably rewarded if I'm successful enough to reach a final table.

Difference of opinion is fine, it's more about the tone. I recognise you from other fora and I hope you'll notice the tone here is different than elsewhere.

I've not joined APAT yet simply because I have been waiting to see if there is likely to be an event that it is convenient for me to attend.  As for the other benefits of membership, I'm going to wait and see how things develop before deciding to join for that alone.

Other than the fact that I've not yet joined, my sentiments are 100% in line with Ginger's.  If I had been at that final table last weekend I would have been desperate to deal, but would not have dared suggest it.

The power of secret squirrel is strong!!, you may not think it now but if the oppoutunity to deal had presented itself you would've done what YOU felt was right at the time and if that meant dealing, unless it was memorialised somewhere that it was forbidden, thats what I'm sure you would've done Claire :)up

Speaking of top heavy..... did you see that dealer on Table One?

Congratulations firsty to everone that organised the broadway event, sounds to me like a great time was had by all..... well done for that.

I'm not yet a member of the APA but as a regular festival player i do have a concern:

Have the committee of the APA lost there marbles ? or have there principles been compromised due to large offers of sponsorship $. Before anyone jumps down my throat..... MONEY TALKS.

If the wonga factor didn't have any effect on your choice to run with a top heavy payout, what on earth made so many highly respected people in the poker community go against all of there beliefs and principles ?

Lead by example and start as you mean to go on, flatter payout's are what at least 85% of players that i speak to want.

Poker desperately needs an organisation like the APA, a group that will lobby to make changes for the good of poker and its players. Please dont make things worse for us by showing the casino's that top heavy payout's are the way forward.

I sincerly hope that i have not offended anyone with my post but thats how i feel, and honesty being the best policy and all that..... i just had to have my say.

ps. i been reading this thread for 2 days before posting, i'm still not sure that i should have.

Steve Read.

;iagree;

I actually find this to be the oddest thread.............everyone involved has said in the past they wan't flatter payouts and think deals are ok ??? yet when given the chance go against it!!!!!!
It makes little sense to me.

Looks to me like a U turn, but why ?

Just to add my two penny worth...I like Ginger am a member, and fully support the aims and principles of APAT,.....but also like her,I wouldn't have like to have played with the massively top heavy stucture on offer.

Yes, the added value from Poker Stars is a fantastic achievement , but the payout stucture isn't right IMHO.

Otherwise, everyone seems to have really enjoyed the first live event, so keep up the good work APAT.

:)

Hi Steve,

I explained "why" in detail in the 8th Post on Page One of this thread. I may well have been wrong, or misguided, but in answer to "why", please see that Post - I was asked the reasons, & carefully set them out, & how I came to my view.

Hi Steve,

"....have the committee of APAT lost their marbles?"....

It was not a committee decision, it was my decision. I set out, in detail, on Page One of this thread how & why I decided to give that structure a try. It was a "concept".

I don't think I've "lost my marbles", but at my age, one never knows.

"....or have there principles been compromised due to large offers of sponsorship $. Before anyone jumps down my throat..... MONEY TALKS...".

Can you explain what you mean by this please. 

The one positive thing I can see this structure doing is that it SHOULD teach the players on the final table to "go for the win" and not to ladder as 4th is the same as 9th.

Thats not to say I agree or disagree with the use of that payout structure

you could still keep the payout structure top heavy but stagger the prizes from 9th to 4th so at least whoever finishes 4th has some sense of achievement for lasting 5 extra places longer than whoever finished 9th.

i understand the reason for apat wanting a "big prize" for first in there first event for those playing no one mentioned the money it was the EPT seat we all had our eyes on but for the press the £4.5k +the EPT seat looks so much better than £2.5k

with future events all hopefully having more runners the need to make the top place so top heavy will be nullified as the total prize pool will be much heavier
i have to agree though that the flat structure from 9th to 4th made for a great table i for one would of played a totally different game if passing would of allowed ladder climbs although it might have been easier to steal with players relunctant to call knowing that they could also ladder climb


hopefully for future events there will be a similair structure but less top heavy so that people making the final can cover costs but there is still proper poker played

we have all expressed views so i think we should sit back allow those at the APAt work out how they want to make the payouts for event 2

i dont think they can make there mind up untill they work out how many people they can host for event 2

Why is ladder climbing not "proper poker"?

Isn't it extraordinary how evocative this subject is?!

Yes.

I think you're in a lose:lose situation too as whatever you do you'll just be in for criticism.

I guess it's a mark of how well the APA is percieved if people feel strongly about it's policies.

I never said ladder climbing wasnt proper poker, I have laddered a few tourneys in my time - where I have so few chips as to not stand a chance of winning.

I just think that when making a final table - winning it should be your main objective - but thats just me personally, not how I think everyone should play.

Whatever the APAT decide, there will ALWAYS be critisism, thats the way of the world.

I was mainly referencing Ironside who did mention proper poker.

Personally I feel that many people like me were shocked and horrified when discovering the payout for the first APAT event.

Certainly I assumed that when Tikay became chairman of APA he brought all of the causes that he has been championing on this forum for the last couple of years(flatter payouts, player friendly blind-structures, etc.) to the table. So much so that I never even bothered to check them out.

Well, no, not really. Sure the criticism will always exist, but I believe - sincerely - that we can improve the Tournament Players lot, so there is a "win" scenario. We got some things right, some things wrong, but it was, overall, not too bad for our first ever Event. And I don't think I've ever seen a 120 player Tourney where so many of those involved had such a fun time. The feedback suggests that, & it's immensely gratifying. We shall look at the things that we either did wrong, or have caused criticism.

I think I phrased it badly tikay, I meant you'll get criticised whatever you do, not that you won't be able to actually improve things...

I have no problems with top heavy pay out as it makes the win worthwhile. It also reduces it being dragged out by players at the final table limping along to try to scrape another place.

However, this is probably not a good time for me to suggest a winner takes all tournament.

Never mind the payout structure when are the pictures getting posted on the website????

Especially of the dealer on table 1.  :D

bongo

playing a final table is a skill in itself knowing when to pass a hand even with the odds in your favour to ensure a jump in the prize money but it makes for a very dull game to watch and play

with the same money for so many spots on the final table people were pushing when they had the odds or and edge which lead to and exciting game both to play (briefly) and watch more like playing in a cash game when calls and raises were made for poker reasons rather than ladder reasons

btw did anyone see the 425 show where Mark became an honary scots while mathew became english?

Thank you Ralph.

I think - so far as I know - that the Blind Structure - given the self-imposed "time-window" we had set ourself - (so folks could get home at a reasonable hour) was OK.

Flatter Prize Structures. My overall view has never changed, I am in the "flatter" camp. (stomach excepted). I tried something different here, for a particular reason & concept. I explained this in Post 8 on Page One of this thread, & on numerous occasions previously, in each case, not just saying what I had done, but explaining in detail how I reached my decision. I can see - now - how my well-intentioned attempt at something innovative has aroused much comment, but it was always so, & as I say, I explained to all & sundry "why". If I was wrong, so be it.

"tikay -...address all of the causes we have been championing in this Forum". Well, we tried & will continue to try, to address them all. Earlier start & finish times was one, we did it. Serious Added Value, another tick. Treat the players better, yup, we did, I think. Make the Final "special", Thomas Kremser style, yup. Consistency in Rulings, and a good & highly visible Rule Book, yup. We have hardlly begun, but I remain highly confident that the issues I have supported in this Forum will come to pass. And that includes, where appropriate, flatter payout structures.

I had, to be honest, assumed people would look at the wider picture, rather than focusing on the one thing which - maybe & arguably - was not to the taste of many, but there you go, nobody's been hurt.

I hope you are keeping well - are you doing the £300 Freeze at Walsall tomorrow?

Groan.....Yes, my fault - I mixed up two of the guys resulting in the 425 graphic being incorrect. My error, I apologise.

I'll chase them up. I've been offline since Tuesday.

No unfortunately not, but I will be playing the APAT online tourney.

I have not been trying to labour the point about the payouts in order to detract in any way from what was unquestionably a very succesful live debut for APAT. I am sure that you know that Tony, but I would just make it clear to any others who may not realise that I am very much in favour of APA and want it to grow on a solid foundation.

Thank you Ralph, & that's accepted. My point was that I had explained what we had tried to do, & why, in great detail. But I accept, APAT has generated over 100 pages (that's 1,500 Posts) of debate already on this Forum alone, so much of what I explained has been lost in that mass of stuff.

Good Luck in the Online Tourney tomorrow. I can't do Walsall, I'm a little under the weather, but I know Julian & Tom are going.

I haven't posted on this thread yet (I don't think) but it seems to me that no one minds what peoples opinions are re the top-heavy prize structure. I would imagine that all opinions are welcomed and will be taken into consideration for future events.

What I do think is important, is the way in which those opinions are expressed.

No one can deny that the event was a resounding success, all it's objectives were achieved.

If you think you can make a suggestion that will improve future events, please, do so.

But please, don't do it in a way that suggests that the organisers didn't try, didn't care, or had some hidden agenda or ulterior motive unless you think that really was the case.

????????

Tom, surely if someone posted in this manner, then they do think that it was really the case?

As far as I can see there has only been one issue that has recieved ANY criticism, I think you would have settled for that before the event & should look at that as a positive rather a negative.

For a first event I think you've all done a fantastic job  ;hattip;

i think there was 2 problems with APAt first was the payout structure (wasnt enough to make me not want to play) 2nd was there was 2 much noise espically on day 2 i certainly think singing should be banned as for old men creeping up on you and clashing together ashtrays i think that should result in a life time ban from all casinos worldwide

I would like to withdraw all of my comments from this thread immediately and also appologise to those that have been offended by them.

I made the comment about "principles being compromised" aimed towards APAT, this comment was not directed towards any individuals. i jumped to a conclusion and i was wrong.

I have spoken to Tony since my last post and personally appoligised to him also.

Sorry !

Steve Read

 

I find it odd that you haven't commented on this particular subject Red, it is after all your main beef regarding live poker.

Well I HOPE that's because Tom understands that.....

1) I remain firmly commmitted to flatter payout structures.

2) It was done this way for a specific reason, as outlined in Post 8 on Page 1 of this thread.

Bear in mind also that Tom is not qualified to play regular APAT Events, so this specific issue does not affect him.

But I'm sure Tom has his reasons!

Have a good weekend Ian.

He also has several other "live poker beefs" & we HAVE addressed them, (structures that don't change mid-comp for one!) so maybe he thinks that, on balance, we are heading in the right direction.

But I better shut up now - it's for Tom to answer, not me!

I wasn't trying to drag him into a debate he isn't comfortable being in, my appologies.
Member or not though, APAT are trying to make changes that eventually will effect everyone, members or not, this i think is an important point.

Thanks Ian. You are right - it IS important that we head down the right road. As I explained, we did it this way at this time for a specific reason. My OP on this thread explains the thinking.

Be assured, I remain 100% committed to flatter structures for regular Circuit Events.

If you are behind a top heavy payout structure for the APAT and behind a flatter payout structure for regular circuit events will this not result in a conflict of interest when you take the ideals of the APA with you to the casinos and Gaming Council?

As it happens, I do think the prize structure was too top heavy, but I realise that APAT is in it's infancy, it's a baby.

When a baby takes it's first few faltering steps, you don't give it a push to see if it will fall over. You don't put obstacles in it's way just to trip it up. and you don't criticise it for not walking perfectly straight and upright.

What you do, is praise it for making the effort, applaud what it has achieved, and do your best to encourage it and give it confidence.

Of course, as it grows and becomes stronger, passing through adolescence into adulthood, we may well need to sit it down and give it a good talking to. For the the moment, let's just scoop it up in our arms and give it a cuddle.

No! As I have stated, it was done this way, this time, for a specific reason. I remain committed (as I have Posted on numerous occasions on APAT threads) to "fairer" (= flatter in my view, but not in everyone's view) payout structures for circuit Events. I also stated that for our Pro-Am Series, we would go for a flatter structure.

We tried something out - if it was wrong, we'll change it. Better to have tried & failed, in my view, though that does not seem to be a view shared by too many. If we don't try & change things, they will stay as they are, & we will be back to where we have been for years - everyone moaning about things, & nobody doing anything about it, & I prefer "do" to "moan".

Have a good weekend Mr Monkey.

Yes squire i did read the post on page one, i wasn't trying to put you on the spot in choosing either/or. 

hope you have a good one too :)

I like the analogy.
I have a friend who has a young daughter called Gracie, now Gracie has just started to talk, she says the odd word here and there.
Yesterday my friend asked her for a cuddle and Gracie said "**** off", should my friend encourage her for her ability to pick up words and repeat them or chastise her for using naughty words?

Gracie said THAT? I don't think she did......Maybe she's not good with words yet?

Is she a decent kid otherwise?

Imperial leather ....

I think your friend should stop swearing in front of her  :redcard:

This analogy is getting VERY complex now......!

have you seen a doctor?

Ok Tikay.. lets take a look shall we....

Now, as coincidence would have it, I too have a 2 year old daughter called Gracie, who is stringing all sorts of wonderful words together.  However, with the amount of time I am giving APAT, the words Ian refers to above are much more likely to come from my wife.....

;hide;

You asked MY reasons for not posting to criticise the prize structure, I gave them to you.

She is blaming it on a friends child, all kids go down that path at some time.
Mine sing along to some of the songs they hear and completely omit the swearing but when they don't think i can hear them they sing those too.