Launch of the Amateur Poker Association & Tour (APAT)

[thetank]

Personally, I'm not a fan of the word "amateur" because of it's negative connotations and I believe it may discourage some "amateurs" from playing. For no better reason than they don't like to think of themselves as such.

Doesn't make a difference to me, I've only two criteria for choosing a poker comp to play in.

Either I think it'll be good craic, or I think it'll be good value.

This sounds like both. So they could call it the Cowardly Obnoxious W**kers Poker Asssociation and Tour for all I care. I'd probably still play.

Would anyone be interested in becoming the media director for the COW PAT?

[Jon MW]

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).

[Wardonkey]

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).

Actually it would only take one...

Alex's solution is the only sensible option.

Alex's definition of  Professional player for APAT purposes
A player who does not deem it worth their time to play a tournament with a buy-in under £100

[Bongo]

Except you'd have to change that to read:

<£100 buyin comps with (significant?) added value.

[thediceman]

I am optimistic that the APAT has the best interests of all poker players and can only see it's creation as a benefit in the long run. Naturally with the creation of anything new there well be discussion points and initial ideas will be modified according to whatever feedback is given. I do however think the key thing is that Des appears to have put a team together that has a GENIUNE interest in improving things in the poker world for the players.

With regards to this being a cash cow I don’t see this as an issue for sometime and believe a nominal membership fee is reasonable considerable the costs incurred in setting up and running such a venture. Time will tell if it provides value for money, or just a get rich scheme for it's businesses partners but at a nominally cost I'm prepared to back my judgement of the persons involved as generally interested in us the players as opposed to their own personal bank balances. Infact I believe the amount of time certain people will invest in this will far exceed any returns they may receive.

The one issue I do have is who will be playing at these "amateur tour" events. I would like to believe the Camel is correct and common sense prevails but am not so confident. With the added value in these comps it will surely attract some players who are anything but amateurs whether they be f/t pro's or semi pro's. Granted I don’t see the Devilfish being to fussed about playing . Personally have no real issue of who I play against but some amateur players on these thread have already expressed even £75 would be a sizeable commitment from there normal stake. So is it worthwhile them playing such a level if they are merely up against “pro poker players” who see this as a low stake gamble to win a huge prize. I understand the comps are designed to encourage play but where’s the play if you get lots of high rollers playing it as a micro game just hoping to get lucky for the valuable added prizes. I understand any game will have it's loose players as will every game will have it's rocks but the more pro’s/semi pro’s playing this as a small time gamble makes the attractive selling point of a good structured tournament much less attractive.

So will common sense resolve this issue???, granted many poker players have the integrity to say that this tournament is for them but then again many will scream valuooooooo and jump at the chance to of playing in a comp with so much added valuoooooo. I recall reading that Lovejoy and Phil Stein where seen playing in a £10 rookie comp in Luton. Are these guys rookies???. How you define an amateur and a professional is not an easy task and one that will never be approved by all people. For me however I would question if this is truly an amateur association if at the tournament finals I see familiar names of players of frequentantly play the main events (i.e. £1000 plus buyins) at the various festivals around the UK.

[Jon MW]

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.

[Alex B]

...
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 think they won't play 'properly' they are adding value to you.

For those who think they will turn up seeking the 'value'. The added-value is worth about $66 per player, after $10 juicethats $56 added. Then there is transport to and from twice, or transport and hotel to consider.

How about we define a pro as anyone who can consider value in the above terms, and therefore wouldn't bother anyway. (Even if you took the $66 as pure added - no expenses, that could only be $3-$5 per hour which anyone you would call a pro could 10x online with no trouble)

Don't be paranoid about playing with people who call themselves "pro's" some of the time, but would enter an event like this on the basis of 'value' rather than social reasons. I very much doubt they would make the event much tougher.

[mikkyT]

Alex B talks sense.

But why are we talking $$? Its ££! (Worth more u see)

[thediceman]

Additionally there are only 120 places in the live comp and will clearly be over subscribed by just 100% amateur players. So why should players who make a living from poker, but are not sponsored, be allowed to play even if they claim it's not for the added valuoooooo but just playing for a social side of it. For every professional/semi professional that plays it excludes a true amateur. have 20 pro's play and let's 1/6th of the field.

Without a clear definition of who qualifiers as an amateur and who's a professional it is possible that the whole concept of an association for amateurs and tournaments for them fails to attract those it is intended for.

[Claw75]

Hello

Just looking for a bit of clarification on a point I raised yesterday.  I asked whether the events were direct buy in only, and was advised by Tighty that they were.  Tikay later confirmed that there would not be any satellites to the UK based events.

Of course that is APATs decision and I have no quarrel with that, I just wondered if someone could explain to me the reasoning behind the 'no satellites' line?

thanks

[ifm]

Well seeing as they will almost certainlt fill the spaces with direct buyins they have no need to run sats.

[Claw75]

Well seeing as they will almost certainlt fill the spaces with direct buyins they have no need to run sats.

but surely that can't be the sole reason for deciding not to run them!?

[ifm]

Maybe not but it's a damn good one!

[Claw75]

Maybe not but it's a damn good one!

lol - I will await the official response!

[ifm]

LOL, the official response is yes/no.
good luck waiting......they seem reluctant to address some questions.