In defence of modern Disney, I'd put Beauty and the Beast as my 3rd favourite Disney film.

You would still get a competitive finish even if they dealt on the prize pool, as they would still be playing on for a much bigger prize, in the shape of the sponsors added seat to the winner.

At the recent Poker 6 event in Bolton there was considerable added prize money put in by the sponsors (almost £30k) yet we did not prevent players from dealing. We simply said that they must leave some money left over after they have dealt so as to ensure it remained competitive until the end.

While it is entirely APAT's choice to decide on whether they will allow deals or not, it seems a step to far to ban them outright. A ballot of signed up members would seem a fair way to do it. After all, it is a players association so surely it should be the member players, not those who run the association who have the final say on this sort of matter.

I agree with the 'no deals' policy to promote the competitiveness but I would expect it to be something that could be voted on by the members in the future.

Also, wouldn't a flatter structure make the players at the final table more likely to, 'go for it'? If a short stacked player knows that the next step up offers a big jump in prize money doesn't this encourage them to just hang around doing nothing hoping that somebody else gets knocked out? If they knew that to get a big jump in prize money they would have to avoid elimination for another 2 or 3 places wouldn't they be more likely to try and get involved and thus make more exciting play?

The only certain conclusion one can make it this stage is that whatever the APAT decides to do that some people is going to be unhappy.

The simply fact is the APAT will not suit everybody. As with any association it will have to clearly define it's position and after this people should then decide if they want to risk £5 or £10 to be a member. I'm sure the APAT will listen to all it's members but it will never be able to satisfy every members individual position. It appears some people are more interested in changing the APAt's original goals just so they can be part of the live jollies. The APAT has gained a considerable amount of sponsorship based on a proposal of creating a live tour for the amteur player. So what defines amateur???. I believe there is never going to be any universal agreement on what an amateur and what a professional player is and whilst it has been suggested it could be self policed I believe this is open to abuse. You just need to read some of the posts or go to any rookie night to see that players love to milk valuooooo.

So does the APAT amend it's intention that the tour is for recreactional/hobby players to allow more people to play. For starters the events are clearly going to be over subscribed so does it need to. Also if they do have how will this effect any future sponsorship they hope to attract considering it's been sold on a different basis. The irony could be that the very players demanding the tour is opened to all but the sponsored pro may result in the nice sponsorship prizes disappear. I wonder how many will be so keen to play in the events was the juicey prizes disappear.

Someone is going to be upset whatever is decided. For me I prefer to see the focus remain on the recreational/hobby players and keep the sponsorship even if this does upset one or two "face" players who I believe this association wasn't intended for in the first place.

 

A very good summary.

No, scrutiny has meant I've thought about what I've written.

But this doesn't mean I might be immune to a huge logic bypass, if it doesn't make sense I could try and reason it out. But if it's really not that important I'm not offended.

Bizarre!

Constructive?

Do you hold a online freeroll for all members wanting and able to attend the event with the top 120 qualify.

Or maybe the bottom 120...

Just in case this were being considered.... I must voice my objection to it.

Both my wife and myself have joined and we both want to play... only one of us would be able to play any online qualifier.

I don't necessarily think that this is the way to go but if they did 4 qualifiers with 30 seats available in each it would address this problem. If they made it so that you could only enter one qualifier it would mean that this would reduce the field to a more manageable size and reduce the lottery aspect. If it was with a modified shootout format this would reduce the lottery aspect further and hopefully cut down the number of 'all in or bust' merchants qualifying for the main event.

The only other concerns with this are the strength of the link to one specific poker site (unless it was repaid on a very long term basis with continued support) and the fact that this wouldn't be a freeroll to qualify, but a freeroll to qualify for the right to pay registration. As such a lot of thought would have to be given to the mechanics of how this would work, as well as how an alternates list would be generated to take into account the fact that of the 120 people in top place, some of them are guaranteed to end up not paying for their seat (forgetting, not being able to afford it, not being able to get time off work etc.).

...
17. Should we advertise the Club..........is word of mouth enough?
...

I think your cab driver answered this question.

The Motorcycle Diaries, check it out on Film4. If you've ever worn the Che Guevara T shirt or had the iconic poster on the wall, catch this wonderful film.

 

I saw it at the cinema and thought it was great. Although a bit late for the recommendation now. 

Apart from the how I think it's been fairly clearly explained by Tikay, Des and Tightend. And I think who it's for is a more positive way of describing it rather than who it's against.

[aren't]

"...who had the buy in..." is the operative phrase. There is a split between amateur and professional already (with a big grey bit in the middle) because most people can't afford to buy in to a pro's tournament.

This statement is laughable. I would guesstimate that 90% of festival players have some sort of income other than poker. Of the other 10%, half are skint or playing outside thier bankroll.
...

Indeed, but 99.99% of poker players aren't festival players.

[can]

Jon,

I am also keen not to become confrontational , our views on professional players differ thats all. The one thing I absolutley love about poker is that it is not exclusive ( until now). If you have the buyin you can sit down and take your chances.

My point about the level of buyin is that there are plenty of people who play £10 - £100 rebuys or freezeouts who make their living doing this. Can they be considered any less proffessional than the players who are playing EPT's or are touring the curcuit?

No, not at all. Some of what I have written is less concerned with the technical accuracy of a definition than with a workable solution to ensuring grass roots representation doesn't get overwhelmed by almost-professional/semi-professional representation. These will all be technically amateurs but would represent a much narrower field than the whole of the base of the poker pyramid. Cash earnings for example are totally unpoliceable and as such are hardly worth considering.

Professionals can enter £10 rebuys that amateurs can enter, this doesn't alter the fact that amateurs by and large can't enter a five thousand euro freezeout that professionals can, because the average grassroots player can't afford to spend thousands on a poker tournament. Doesn't this just further illustrate that this isn't creating a split?

My first post on this thread so I would just like to start by saying good luck to Tighty , Tk , Mel et al .


I have serious problems with the previous posters coment tho.


"...who had the buy in..." is the operative phrase. There is a split between amateur and professional already (with a big grey bit in the middle) because most people can't afford to buy in to a pro's tournament.

Please can you define a "pro's tournament"? The level of buyin has absolutely no relevence to wether pro players play in it or not.

I am reluctant to call myself a proffessional poker player , however for the last couple of months poker has been paying my mortgage and living expenses. I can't believe that i wouldn't come into the ameture deifnition and be eliable to play in the APAT.

I await clarification on the definition of amateur.

Stripping out the influence of satellites the level of buy in will always determine who plays in it. Of the hundreds of thousands of people who play poker in the UK only  a minority will be able to afford to pay the five thousand Euros to enter an EPT event for example (plus the travel and accommodation cost). The players who will are the fortunate few who have the disposable income to be able to do so from other means, and the professionals.

My personal view would be that if somebody was earning enough income over a whole year (not just a matter of months) to pay their mortgage and living expenses then this would make them a professional. But I wouldn't want any of this thread to be considered directly confrontational and as you say we will have to see what the official line from APAT is.

"...who had the buy in..." is the operative phrase. There is a split between amateur and professional already (with a big grey bit in the middle) because most people can't afford to buy in to a pro's tournament.

To restrict something to amateur takes some artifice but doesn't create a split that wasn't there to start with.

Don't be  be  , always look on the bright side of life.

...My thoughts on the APAT are that I agree that there is a need for a players association but do not agree with the need to label it amateur or professional. ...

Money talks - if professional poker players united behind an organisation they would be the one's who would be able to influence it the most. This would lead to the minority of poker players (the professionals) having disproportionate influence over the majority (the amateur). I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be separate representation for both.

...It is very difficult to fully distinguish or police who is a professional or an amateur. It is largely down to perceived wisdom or a players own admission, that they are deemed to be a pro....

This is true, I don't see any way that could be entirely unambiguous but a definition as a guideline would at least give a starting point.

.. A player's status as pro could also be due to a single big windfall win that enables them to give up their day job and claim poker as a profession.

The lines of disctinction between what classifies a pro or an amateur are blurred. Does pro/am refer to whether one makes a living from it or not; or is it merely a way of alluding to whether someone is a good player or a bad player? Or very lucky or unlucky....

The usual definition of amateur is related to not earning money, but as that is what we deal in you couldn't really only define amateurs as losing players! This is why my view is that the definition should be based on tournament winnings or ranking points and not tournament entries. This would not penalise someone just because they're rich and wouldn't penalise anyone who just saved hard to enter big tournaments. Obviously it does relate to skill, but you can't really get away from the fact that you would expect a group of professional anything to be better than amateurs (e.g. professional league football players and amateur non-league footballers).

...Additionally, I feel that any tour should be an entirely separate entity to any players rights organisation. I'm not  comfortable with the two going hand in hand, especially where membership fees for the association are going towards some of the costs associated with the tour....

I can see your point but it does provide a basis for ensuring that the tour is run in the best interest of the players. If the WSOP was run by a players organisation would you see so many disputes for example? A comparison can be made with the English Chess Federation which runs its own tournaments.

...Also the existence of a profit making holding company wholly or majorly owning a non-profit making players association sits uneasingly with me as I'm sure it does with many others....

I personally see the profit motive of a commercial owner providing the stability for the future existence of the organisation. But to be honest that argument doesn't really interest me.

... getting the feeling of being unwelcome after making the same points.

I think that most of the arguments and counter-arguments put forward in this thread have been genuinely meant as either wishing to seek clarification or defending the position which they believe in and think is for the good of the game. Anybody else is easy to ignore.

Personally I think these opposing views have meant that any points raised have been examined fairly extensively from both sides of the argument and  this scrutiny can only be for the benefit of the decision makers in APAT.

There is already an organisation for professionals.

So what?

So there is already a voice for the professionals. Any issues which concern all poker players can be addressed by both organisations giving a stronger voice. Any issues which fundamentally only affect amateurs can be addressed by APAT.

How is a divided voice a stronger voice?

Professionals aren't always going to want the same thing as amateurs - hence the need for an organisation for both.