...judging by the comments already, ...it would appear that a balck and white definition would be a great advantage, then everyone knows where they stand, and no one sneaks under the radar.

 I'm no expert on the euro rankings, but it seems a good list of pros/semi pros... even some "amateurs" to exclude because of their winnings in this particular rolling year. Its live tournaments only I believe...so Wardonnkey could prob. play ....and any online only pro....but so what,this is live and besides you have a black and white list to work on. its just a question of where you make the cut off.
Take me for example, I'm def am amateur!, but have 400 pts for a 4k win earlier this year.If the cut off is 1000 pts on the day I'm OK....but if I get lucky and win some big cash at a ranking event before, i can't play....seems fair enough.

I know nothing about the Euro Rankings, but from what you've said this could be a useful altenative to a strict cash limit.

I also think if somebody wins one of the Amateur titles and it comes to light that they won 50k playing poker the previous year the grassroots players would be right to question whether these tournaments were truly aimed at them.

None of your solutions would stop this from happening.

That's right it would still rely on players acting according to their conscience.

At least if the comp is open to all then everyone knows exactly where they stand and no-one feels aggreived.

Everyone would know where they stand - it would mean the tournaments would be dominated by pro's and semi-pros and the grass roots player would stop entering. I think by 'no-one' you mean the pro's and semi-pro's who have just got themselves a good series of tournaments. I think the genuine amateur player would have every right to feel aggrieved after having their tour hijacked.

What would happen if a 'pro' sneaked in under the radar and won an event?

I would expect that if that person could not reasonably justify defining themselves as an amateur they would be disqualified from that event and APAT and whatever normally happens if a player is disqualified to occur (Sadly I'm too much of an amateur to know what this is).

... The whole thing would become a farce with bad feeling from all sides....

I think the players that APAT state these tournaments are aimed at would have every right to show bad feeling to such a player, and I would hope that other more conscientious professionals would equally condemn such an act of bad faith.

If a player genuinely still didn't know whether they would qualify as an amateur they could always check with APAT.

Wow, this is hard, I feel really sorry for you people who actually have to make the decisions.

...Heck they could win the first event, goto the tourney they won entry too, get a decent cashing and not be allowed to play any more APAT events. Surely you can't say that would be right?

This is one of the pitfalls some definitions could fall into - but the qualifying period would be 12 months prior to the registration of the first event and be valid for the whole tour so nobody would find themselves unable to continue in the tour half way through the season just because they've just had a big win.

I'd love to win £50k through a £5 sat, if I did I wouldn't begrudge other people having a single season to enter a handful of amateur of tournaments, there would be plenty of tournaments of higher buy ins I would be able to afford with my £50k.

[all abilities]

I also think if somebody wins one of the Amateur titles and it comes to light that they won 50k playing poker the previous year the grassroots players would be right to question whether these tournaments were truly aimed at them.

I look forward to welcoming players of all abilities to the APAT

But

...
2. The competitions are aimed at recreational/hobby players...

If

... all abilities ...

was taken literally it would still include full time professionals, a line has to be drawn somewhere otherwise it will default to the skilled semi-professionals who are likely to dominate.

I also think if somebody wins one of the Amateur titles and it comes to light that they won 50k playing poker the previous year the grassroots players would be right to question whether these tournaments were truly aimed at them.

You'll never be able to accurately tell that though.

How many rebuys did player X have?

How many comps have they entered without cashing?

What have they done online?

I know. It would still largely rely on players deciding for themselves whether they were eligible and acting appropriately.

I don't see any way of avoiding this. But at least if there was a clear rule like this it would avoid any doubt from the honest players who wouldn't want to accidentally enter a tournament that wasn't really aimed at them and it would provide a clear rule for exluding someone if they had clearly broken this eligibility rule. This would still not be easy, and the reason I specified tournament profit was because cash wins would be completely untraceable rather than because they shouldn't count. Hopefully it would never come to it but if a tournament winner was suspected of not being an amateur it is within the APAT's rules to exclude them.

Overall, a rule so players themselves would know whether they were eligible backed up by common sense from APAT on the enforcement of this rule would seem to be the most practicable and workable solution to the problem.

What if they've won £15000 in prizes but spent £10000 in buyins?

I meant profit - the buy in is also freely available. But yes I know I didn't make that clear.

[would]

I think you'll find a lot of amateurs are as good as semi pros...

What is a semi pro anyway? Anyone who is profitable? 

I'd say anyone who earns an income from poker, but isn't a full time pro. Therefore a few hundred or a few thousand a year profit would still be amateur, but £15000 (or some other figure) and above would be semi-pro.

What if you won £100,000 last year, but lost £90,000 this year?

If there was a rule on eligibility for the Amateur Tour which was something along the lines of:

If you have won less then £15000 in tournament poker prize money in the 12 months prior to the registration opening for the first event of the tour then you can enter all the tournaments for that season.

It would mean that people could swap from year to year whether they were an amateur or not, but I think this would be the best way of ensuring that you won't get vast numbers of semi-professional players swamping the field and pushing out the grass roots players, whilst at the same time it wouldn't unduly penalise a dedicated amateur who happened to go on a hot streak and win a lot in one year. It would mean that they wouldn't be able to enter the tour for the following season, but this would only be for one year.

I think this would provide a clear definition to work to, while still avoiding some of the pitfalls that other (some looser, some tighter) definitions might fall into.

I think you'll find a lot of amateurs are as good as semi pros...

What is a semi pro anyway? Anyone who is profitable? 

I'd say anyone who earns an income from poker, but isn't a full time pro. Therefore a few hundred or a few thousand a year profit would still be amateur, but £15000 (or some other figure) and above would be semi-pro.

i would be slightly 'put off' or less interested to make the effort to travel and play in some of these tours if there were high earning semi-pros playing.

 

If you win, you get to play a nice easy EPT event. Not much cance of running into high earning semi-pro's there eh? 

That's why it's a prize. Paying to play against people who you have very little chance of beating is somewhat less appealing.

If he could beat QQ wouldnt he slowplay it? cos he knows exactly when and if he's been outdrawn.

Or bet on the assumption that you're opponent would assume that you're bluffing.

[BUT]

By definition isn't a semi pro also a part amateur?

Yes they are, and they are covered by APAT's current definition they are using, this is why I have sympathy with those who would want to enter the tour.

BUT

as has already been mentioned if semi-pro's end up joining they will be more likely to end up dominating the paying positions. This would mean that after the first year most recreational players will see that they haven't got a chance and the tour will only be played by semi-pros.

Whilst there is nothing wrong with the concept of a tour for the middle tier of poker players, this is not what APAT's stated aims are.

It will only be after the first year that the success (or otherwise) of this being a tour for the grassroots rather than the middle tier will be able to be judged but posts from APAT, particularly the last few, have reassured me that they are sticking to their aims of representing recreational, grassroots players and I have every confidence that this issue is being looked in to in an appropriate way and a satisfactory conclusion will be reached.

That's interesting, not that anyones posted anything interesting about my hands, I've just folded in the ones posted.  No abuse though!  I'll check that out from time to time

Sadly mines the same. It also can be worthwhile just googling your own name to see if you pop up in any other context - although I don't come up there either, coming to the conclusion that I might just be a bit dull.

Some players on this thread have already mentioned that they think this would be a good tournament to play in because of the social aspect not because of the value. And as Mr Yong has stated elsewhere regarding the APAT tour,

...
I like the idea of lower buy-in events that have more credibility, this should help bring more new players into the game, really £50-£300 freezouts have become a bit of a farce nowadays since all the buy-in's have increased over the last 2 years, and many of the pros (and those with deeper pockets) just use them as an opportunity to "let off some steam". This can be frustrating for the serious ameteur getting their AA cracked by 24, so I hope this APAT works out really well...

Although the rich business men (and in relation to me this is a lot of people) will still be able to enter an amateur tournament in the same vein, I would be much happier if the seasoned pro/semi-pro weren't as I would prefer the majority of people there to regard this £75 as a significant amount of money and not something that could be gambled every week. In light of Rob's comment I would see the rule regarding people who think a sub £100 freezeout being worthwhile isn't going to work.

If you earn an income (rather than a bit of spare cash) from poker then you're a professional poker player.

Internet players may not be in the same league when it comes to a live tournament as they are online but as most recreational players will come into poker from playing online then take the same amount away from their skill and the differential still remains. And would you seriously consider it being amended to an amateur (unless you earn your money online) tournament?

Jon, To police this, wont you have to rely on people being honest, and therfore only exclude the honest pro's?

This is true and whatever is put in place could come unstuck if too many pros undermine it by entering (because they probably would get away with it). But if something is defined such as

Frankly, I think the only way to resolve the pro/amateur debate is by setting some sort of list of exclusions i.e. if you have won £x in a tournament in more than x occassions you are excluded or a money won limit. 

Players could be excluded by winning a certain amount (gross) over the last year - my suggested figure is €25000. 

This is transparent and clear and anyone entering who has won more than this knows they are cheating.

then the APAT and it's members would have a clear guideline as to who is or is not eligible. This would not stop everyone - online winnings would be harder to reference - but it would make it clear to individuals if they are eligible or not. This would still rely on self policing but it would be a workable solution rather than a free for all (or a virtual free for all if the only criteria was sponsorship for example).