Launch of the Amateur Poker Association & Tour (APAT)

[Heid]

Not having anything to do with this, but I can see that the diff between online and live pros is zero?

[TightEnd]

Another point that has not been brought up as far as I am aware is the difference between "online pros" and those who make their living at the live game.

The live venue "pros" salivate at the thought of some juicy "online pros" venturing into their arena.

There is an enormous difference between the two disciplines and many successful live players are hopeless online and vice-versa.

Just another thing to consider.

thanks, I will consider this too. I haven't so far thought about drawing a distinction to be frank

[tikay]

Nobody replied to my question asking whether I am considered to be a "pro".

I get a living (just) presently from playing lower limit cash games and tournies online and I am moderately successful

Betting on sports. Unfortunately I have to pay the bills and that has so far prevented me from moving up the limits.

But to me that is way better than working even if I put in 60 hours per week.

An answer would be appreciated.

Sorry Karabiner. I promised to answer every question, & I will, but I keep getting sidetracked by all sorts of strange diversions.

In my opinion, FWIW, I don't consider you to be a Pro in the sense that you cannot play APAT Events. TightEnd & I disagree here, but no matter, it's ultimately for you to decide in the first instance. You do Poker, AND Sports Betting - right? So your living does not come entirely from Poker? In which case, it's my view you are cleared to play. The likes of Julian Thew are what I consider to be real Pros - he has, in effect, guaranteed income from his Sponsor, like £x00k per annum in guaranteed Tournament Entry Fees.

Contrary to what one of my colleagues has said tonight, it's my view that we want you to make that decision, using what has been formally (formally, not formerly!) stated, & common sense.

But from the weight of questions on this matter, we will see if we can define it better. Clearly, Des, Tighty, & I, need to see if we can make this easier to clarify.

But for now, if I were you, I'd consider myself APAT eligible.

It would be lovely to see you there, whatever, because I think you'll find it's going to be an excellent day.

Red-Dog next, THEN the Structures missive!

Apologies for "crossing" TightEnd, but we are both big ugly boys, & there is no harm in differing opinions. Awkward one, though.

[dik9]

Why not say open to non sponsored players?

[TightEnd]

dik9, you talk a lot of sense...sometimes! not often, just sometimes

Karabiner, I apologise. You can see we are wrestling with this stuff. We'll try and define it better asap

[Sark79]

Yep, I agree Graham.  I am not in a position to play them right now in more than one way. I don't have the money and secondly, I don't have the skills.  But one day I will have.   I think it gives the ordinary player who doesn't have a big BR the opportunity to play against the well known players.  Who knows this may provide the stepping stone for the next big name in poker.  I am not into hero worshipping players, we are all capable of winning, only some of us have learned how to do this and some of us have still to learn it.  This series will help with that process.

[Karabiner]

dik9, you talk a lot of sense...sometimes! not often, just sometimes

Karabiner, I apologise. You can see we are wrestling with this stuff. We'll try and define it better asap

No apology needed, IMO there is a great deal of grey area between sponsored pros and those who grind out a living.

I don't really believe you need to exclude all of them from this.

[Ginger]

Hmmm, I can see this 'Pro' distinction is going to be a headache for APAT to define. By some of the descriptions I would be dissallowed as for a part of the year my sole income is from poker (when not receiving Uni grants, loans etc.) but under NO circumstances would I ever describe myself as a pro?!

Also, taking Karabiner for example, I have no real idea how much he plays or how well he does in all honesty, but saying that he can play as he also does sports betting confuses me, James also sports bets so does this mean that he would also be allowed?!!

I think the whole 'amateur' player needs defining, as I seem to have very different views of what is one, and what isn't!

[RED-DOG]

I don't want to decide if I'm eligible, I'm bias. I want to be told

[tikay]

Why not say open to non sponsored players?

As I said, Des, Tighty & myself will, in the light of feeback today, try & define it better tomorrow.

However we define it won't change the fact that, in my opinion, those who set out to have a good day, will have a good  day. That's my job, to make sure they do. I'm confident they will. Very.

OK, Red-Dog next (I keep saying that!) , then structures....

[Karabiner]

Why not say open to non sponsored players?

This looks like a definitive description, as long as we know what "sponsored" means 

[tikay]

I don't want to decide if I'm eligible, I'm bias. I want to be told

You want to be told? Well let me deal direct with Mrs Red, then you will have to do as told. I gather she wears the shoes in McCready Towers.

Do you have any other form of income at all, Tom? When did you last earn any money outside of poker? When might you next?

Hopefully, we will have some better definition by tomorrow, but this is quite difficult. Camel's Post was the one I liked most on this matter, he seemed to have my "feel" for it.

And we also have the added equation of "online Pros" to sort. Not easy, but I'm sure common sense will prevail. It usually does the trick.

[Wardonkey]

I don't understand the need to exclude anyone.

The big name pros will not be interested in this size of tourney. Even I have better +ve EV if I stay at home and play on-line.

I would like to play because it sounds like a fun event, where I can meet friends and play in a well structured tourney that is not going to take a chunk out of my bankroll.

I can't see how rule can be enforcable and I think it will cause problems. I also don't understand the reasoning behind the rule.

My piece is said, I shall wait until your musings are complete. I will try not to sulk if you decide I cannot play...
 

[tikay]

Hmmm, I can see this 'Pro' distinction is going to be a headache for APAT to define. By some of the descriptions I would be dissallowed as for a part of the year my sole income is from poker (when not receiving Uni grants, loans etc.) but under NO circumstances would I ever describe myself as a pro?!

Also, taking Karabiner for example, I have no real idea how much he plays or how well he does in all honesty, but saying that he can play as he also does sports betting confuses me, James also sports bets so does this mean that he would also be allowed?!!

I think the whole 'amateur' player needs defining, as I seem to have very different views of what is one, and what isn't!

Jane,

In all honesty, I can't see any yardstick by which you could be classed as a Poker Pro, & I think you are a good example of how we'd define "Amateur". Yes, you play a lot of poker, thats all you do sometimes, but Poker Pro? I don't think so. And that has nothing to do with ability. Do you write "Poker Professional" down when filling in "Occupation" on a form?

[Sark79]

I go for regular check ups at the hospital and I always have to fill out a stupid forms.  Do you smoke, drink, etc.  One of the questions is always occupation.   What do Pro Players write down?    Do you get funny looks from people when you say " I am a poker pro".   My family still have the image in their minds of a person in a cowboy hat and smoking a cigar.  I think most people do