Launch of the Amateur Poker Association & Tour (APAT)

[BrumBilly]

You've got more chance of playing against 'pro's' in your local £10/£20 rebuy than in a £75 freezeout IMO (atleast that's the case in the Midlands). I know for my money I'd be happier playing pro's in a freezeout rather than a silly rebuy where deep pockets count (I'm just anti rebuy comps..personal preference...If I lose my chips whether through bad luck or poor play then I should be OUT, no second chances or 3rd etc.etc.)  Essentially I think the events should be open to all who register. There will be players for whom the comp won't represent value so they won't turn up anyway. For a number of reasons, I don't see that making the events 'Open' would necessarily run counter to the association promoting the interests of the hobby player.

I'm sure this thread will run and run, so that's my two penneth for now.

Will.

[BrumBilly]

Byronkincaid. Apologies for repeating some of the points you made. I was typing reply while you were posting.

[Jon MW]

Like I said this can only work if it is self policing, and the level this is done will only be able to be measured after the first year or so.

But if the winners of some/all the first year's events are shown to be players who have earnt several thousands playing poker (Hendon Mob Player database for live, Tournament Reporter website and others for online), then this tour is not going to represent value for the recreational, amatuer player - and the semi-professional/professional-in-all-but-name players will be the only ones entering the tour for subsequent years - this will certainly be contrary to APAT's stated aims.

[Jon MW]

I don't like/play rebuys either

[BrumBilly]

Good point and well made! Time will tell.

Will.

[doubleup]

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.  

By the defintion I am an amateur but over the last year (albeit running hot!):

2006  
 22 Jun € 500 No Limit Holdem
Concord Card Casino, Vienna, Austria 1st € 16,390      
        
 06 May Blackpool Championship
£ 1,000 No Limit Holdem
Grosvenor Casino, Blackpool, England 16th £ 1,430            
        
 22 Apr € 700 No Limit Holdem
Olympic Casino, Vilnius, Lithuania 2nd € 6,191  
        
        
 20 Apr € 145 No Limit Holdem
Olympic Casino, Vilnius, Lithuania 4th € 9080  
        
        
 17 Apr Paddy Power Irish Open
€ 3,000 No Limit Holdem
Merrion Club, Dublin, Ireland 10th € 10,000    
        
            
        
 06 Oct European Poker Tour
€ 4,000 No Limit Holdem
Casinos Austria, Baden, Austria 13th € 6,840    
        
        
 15 Jul Thistle Classic
£ 250 No Limit Holdem
Glasgow Berkeley Casino, Glasgow, Scotland 4th £ 1,470

I've also won more than $100k in online tournaments including a 2nd in last year's WCOOP.

I don't think that these tournaments are aimed at me, so the criteria should exclude me.  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.

[Graham C]

I wouldn't consider travelling over Europe to play in tourneys that cost thousands amateur poker.

[doubleup]

I wouldn't consider travelling over Europe to play in tourneys that cost thousands amateur poker.

But I am a Compliance Officer for an insurnce company - so I'm an amateur!  Ironically I'm under threat of redundancy - so if I get laid off to I suddenly transform into being a pro?  Maybe if I sign on I can keep my amateur status

[Graham C]

I'm amazed at the number of decent poker pros (whether or not they consider themselves pros or not) that actually want to be a part of an amateur event - is it for the easy competition?  This has obviously sparked a lot of debate and I appreciate it's hard to technically define who is a pro.

Are the actual amateurs of the game going to suffer by being a part of APAT?  They are certainly going to have to play against some of the better players in the country.  Perhaps I should stick to my local £50 freezeout once a month.

[Jon MW]

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. 

....

I don't think that these tournaments are aimed at me, so the criteria should exclude me.  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.

I don't think a specific amount needs to be set, although it would at least provide a concrete definition. If people can't work out for themselves whether they count as amateur or not they can contact APAT before tournament registration. And if a complaint is made about a player who has entered being a professional I would expect it to be investigated (tax returns wouldn't be necessary as live tournament winnings, and to a lesser extent online winnings are available in the public domain) and then for APAT to use the powers available to them to clear someone or expel them.

I commend you on your commonsense and I would hope that the majority of those players who know that this tour isn't aimed at them (however much value - economic or social - it represents) would have the appropriate judgement to not enter. I don't expect 100% of players in this category to do this, but as long as they are in the minority these tours should still be a big pull for the recreational/hobby/amateur player.

Does anyone know how other sports who have in the past had to make this distinction have managed it? The only definitions I've come across in the past is that you're a professional if you earn all your money from the sport (including sponsorship), and you're a semi-pro if you earn a significant portion of your income from the sport (still depends on the definition of significant) - I would expect both of these groups to be excluded as not being amateur.

[Karabiner]

Although Tikay has said that it would be okay for me to play, I'm still confused.

I chatted for a while with Byronkincaid at BB1 and we had quite a lot in common, both lower limit "pros"
who have operated successfully online, in his case in SNG's and mine low limit cash and some MTT's.
We were saying how paying the bills had prevented us moving up and building a proper bankroll.

But I also do quite a lot of sports betting mainly on golf which generates about 25% of my income,
although I could possibly not bet for a month or two if I do not find a spot to bet.

Red-dog is similar to me except that he plays almost entirely tourneys and at a higher level.

If you asked me where my main income comes from the honest answer is "poker".
But if I were to sell a property that I have on the market and become financially stable again so that
I did not have to pay the bills from my poker profits that would now make me an "amateur".

Or if Red-dog were to win the lottery and become independantly wealthy then he would be an "amateur" too.

The point is that the definitions of amateur and professional are determined by financial stability.
If you need the money you are a pro, and if you don't then you're not. Playing ability does not come in to it.

I'm still confused.

[Jon MW]

This does suggest that maybe Doubleups definition incorporating tournament winnings might be the way to go.

If you've won less than a certain amount in the last 12 months before the registration of the first tournament you can enter all the tournaments for the following season (this would stop anybody finding themselves in the position of being unable to enter halfway through the season just because they've won some cash in a tournament).

[TightEnd]

Karabiner, respectfully, I disagree

I do not think one's bankroll affects the definition of amateur or professional at all

If Mr Poker Pro (unsponsored but no other source of income) wins the lottery he has capital behind him but if he has no other source of income and still plays poker he is still a pro.

However what this thread has established is the many grey areas that we are going away to look at and see if we can find an accomodation for the various strands of thought

[Ginger]

I agree with Jon MW’s post,  I think that most of the people that have to ask if APAT is for them already know the answer. Maybe the question should not be ‘Am I a pro?’ but ‘Am I truly an amateur?’

As well as the possible limit on earnings, James put another good idea forward to me last night. To exclude say the top 200 European ranking points would also help towards defining a line, although this doesn’t  exclude all the people that I believe shouldn’t be part of APAT, as some simple haven’t scored enough to be in the top 200 yet, though they undoubtedly will do soon enough.

[rivered]

Well this looks like a great idea and thanks to the organisers for all the prompt responses.  My one big question / concern is:

 - I strongly suspect this will be a quick sell out event.  I have joined and paid my £10, but if I'm not quick enough at keying in my card payment details, or I happen to be in the loo when the buy-in function becomes live, I might not get to play in a single event this year.  Is anything going to be done to address this?  It doesn't seem fair that a lot of members won't get to play the live events after paying their membership fee.

Clearly the pro vs am issue also needs to be sorted, but this has already been covered.  I think it would be good to have an 'annual earnings' approach to this with a cap on the amount you make in any one year from poker defining whether or not you qualify as an amateur.  Clearly this would be very difficult to police, but so would any approach.  At least this would place a clear line in the sand for those who are unsure themselves whether they are pro or not (e.g. RedDog and Karabiner).

I think the buy in is spot on, given it's a main event.  It would be nice to run another tourney the next day, say a £20 rebuy for the players knocked out in the first day.  I'll probably be one of them if i manage to get a spot in the first place, and would hate for my hotel booking for the second night to have been wasted as I'll be travelling up from London.

Cheers,

Joe