Launch of the Amateur Poker Association & Tour (APAT)

[TightEnd]

when breaking tables ,  will it be the shortstack that moves ?

Rule 131c....if AdamM is at any time the shortstack at any table, he should be moved at the earliest opportunity

[RioRodent]

going back to the structure etc............



when breaking tables ,  will it be the shortstack that moves ?

I assume you mean when balancing tables, since everyone moves when breaking a table.

From the APAT website...

Rule 62  Moving players: Players will be moved from the big blind to the worst position

[Karabiner]

going back to the structure etc............



when breaking tables ,  will it be the shortstack that moves ?

From the APAT website...

Rule 62  Moving players: Players will be moved from the big blind to the worst position

 

[Royal Flush]

going back to the structure etc............



when breaking tables ,  will it be the shortstack that moves ?

From the APAT website...

Rule 62  Moving players: Players will be moved from the big blind to the worst position

 

classic

[mikkyT]

An amatuer golfer can play and even win the British Open without having to turn professional because of it.

A professional once turned pro, can never go back to the amatuer game. Poker should take a leaf out of golfs book. If someone is often buying in directly to high profile 'majors', like WSOP, EPT, WPT and even european ranking main events then they are not an amateur.

Anyone else is fair game, imo.

[Karabiner]

An amatuer golfer can play and even win the British Open without having to turn professional because of it.

A professional once turned pro, can never go back to the amatuer game. Poker should take a leaf out of golfs book. If someone is often buying in directly to high profile 'majors', like WSOP, EPT, WPT and even european ranking main events then they are not an amateur.

Anyone else is fair game, imo.

Sorry Mikky but a professional golfer may revert to being an amateur if he wishes.

I'm not exactly sure of what criteria he has to fulfill but I have known a couple of guys who did this.

[Bongo]

If someone is often buying in directly to high profile 'majors', like WSOP, EPT, WPT and even european ranking main events then they are not an amateur.

What if they are just very rich? We should penalise them for that?

[Robert HM]

If someone is often buying in directly to high profile 'majors', like WSOP, EPT, WPT and even european ranking main events then they are not an amateur.

What if they are just very rich? We should penalise them for that?

Damn right we should, jealousy is a strong emotion but acts as an incentive to improve 

[mikkyT]

Well it seems as arbitary as anything else Bongo.... Amount of money and professional status have no bearing on skill level, imo. But if we want to discriminate then there are always people who are going to be caught on the other side. Which is why a hard an fast rule will never work.

Im sure the APAT team have been through all of this already and such came up with the common sense ruling. Anyone who is unsure of their status can contact the team for clarification. Anyone caught breaking the spirit of the rule will be disqualified and removed from the tour.

Simple.

[Jon MW]

If someone is often buying in directly to high profile 'majors', like WSOP, EPT, WPT and even european ranking main events then they are not an amateur.

What if they are just very rich? We should penalise them for that?

This is why it should go on tournament winnings or ranking points. It could be argued that travelling around Europe and the World entering poker tournaments is not the habits of a grassroots amateur, but if someone is doing this and not being very succesul I would rather classify them as a Gentleman Amateur rather than as a rubbish professional and I don't think that their eligibility to join an amateur tour should be prejudiced by this.

[Jon MW]

Well it seems as arbitrary as anything else Bongo.... Amount of money and professional status have no bearing on skill level, imo. But if we want to discriminate then there are always people who are going to be caught on the other side. Which is why a hard an fast rule will never work.

Im sure the APAT team have been through all of this already and such came up with the common sense ruling. Anyone who is unsure of their status can contact the team for clarification. Anyone caught breaking the spirit of the rule will be disqualified and removed from the tour.

Simple.

I think that a technical definition is needed for clarity, but that the common sense interpretation of this definition should be done by the APAT for the good of poker. It is already in the APAT's rules that the final say over whether someone is eligible is down to APAT so a definition wouldn't be a hard and fast rule to abide by, it would just be a guideline to help prevent confusion and hopefully give an objective, measurable criteria which people can judge for themselves whether they are eligible.

[tikay]

Been offline guys, sorry, so much to catch up on!

My PC has just died, & the Lappie is not far behind. Off to buy a new PC, & set it up - the latter a 2 minute job, "plug & play" I'm told.......

And while I'm out, I may drop into Gala Notts & play a little poker.......

Will be back online later, suited & booted, & will deal with all the questions - probably by a generic "FAQ" style Post.

Much has been resolved & clarified since I last Posted, much still has to be done, but I'm delghted, we are getting there.

Thanks for all the feedback, good & bad, & I'll read the lot before Posting later this evening.

[AdamM]

when breaking tables ,  will it be the shortstack that moves ?

Rule 131c....if AdamM is at any time the shortstack at any table, he should be moved at the earliest opportunity

dont try and defuse the tension by picking on me 

It sounds to me as if some people would like potential entrants to prove they are a losing small stakes fish before being allowed to enter. In a tournament with deep stacks, slow clocks and large fields there are some entrants who will have very little or even no chance at all of winning, even in a field of true amatures. tough, that's the same in most tourneys. you only hear about the exceptional cases of people who win a big tourney after playing 6 months. no one ever talks about te people who play 50 tourneys without making a final table.

a few simple points.
there's no such thing as a semi pro poker player.
you either have a job or you don't.
if you have a full time job you are amature.
if you are 18 - 65 and have no full time job you are a pro.
If you are 18 - 65, have no full time job and are signing on you can't afford to enter the tourney.   
if you are signing on and you DO have a big enough bankroll to play you are a benefit cheat and still a pro.
(this one I don't like but unfortunately it seems logical) if you are a home maker, a student or retired and are funding your lifestyle mainly with poker money you are a pro.
simple solution. on the registration form you should be asked for your employment details.if you are self employed you should be asked if the self employment provides a greater anual income than the poker.
if you cannot enter employment details but feel you are not a pro you should be able to write in appeal to the APAT

The example of Rob Yong was used. anyone who's played against him knows he's a very good player indeed. he's not under any finacial pressure when playing for £75 and unless you get lucky, there are plenty of people on this forum who are in big trouble against a player like him. He's definitely an amature by every criteria you can come up with but is a strong enough player that he can compete in WSOP / EPT / WPT events and have a serious shot. some people seem to be suggesting someone like him should declare their previous 12 months winnings. with respect, thats none of anyones business but him and his accountant and the idea that a potential player should be scrutinised to that extend is daft.

as I said, if you have no fulltime job you're a pro and can't play. anyone who feels they are not a pro but have no fulltime employment should be encouraged to write to APAT for exception. deal with the exceptions on a case by case basis.

[Colchester Kev]

a few simple points.
there's no such thing as a semi pro poker player.
you either have a job or you don't.
if you have a full time job you are amature.
if you are 18 - 65 and have no full time job you are a pro.
If you are 18 - 65, have no full time job and are signing on you can't afford to enter the tourney.   
if you are signing on and you DO have a big enough bankroll to play you are a benefit cheat and still a pro.
(this one I don't like but unfortunately it seems logical) if you are a home maker, a student or retired and are funding your lifestyle mainly with poker money you are a pro.
simple solution. on the registration form you should be asked for your employment details.if you are self employed you should be asked if the self employment provides a greater anual income than the poker.
if you cannot enter employment details but feel you are not a pro you should be able to write in appeal to the APAT

Man you do come out with some corkers Adam, what makes you judge and jury that if someone is on benefits and earns a few bob playing poker that they are a benefit cheat ?

Also if you are a student or a home maker or retired you are a pro ... ??

What colour is the sky on your planet  ?

I dont know if you are just trying to wind people up or not, but if thats seriously what you believe, i feel pity for you and your narrow minded views.

[AdamM]

calm down kev

what Im saying is if you're signing on but are able to support yourself through poker money, you shouldnt be signing on. to claim job seekers allowance you have to be actively seeking full time employment. that's a different debate though.

with the student/homemaker/retired thing I started the other way round, from the basis they're amature but I thought about the financial level we're talking about. if you are a home maker or student then playing a £30 comp every now and again is fine. if you can afford a two day £75 comp with accomidation, you're probably earning enough from poker that you should be considered a pro. maybe not, ofcourse many homemakers and students have parttime jobs they could easily use the money from to pay for comps like this. so forget the student / homemaker / retired stuff OK? provide employment details on the application form?

 I said earlier I'd be happy not to exclude anyone but make sure it's pitched at amature pokckets. people seem determined to come up with a definition of a pro so I threw one out there. I have no desire to be judge or jury on anything. I just want those that are hung up on it to come to some sort of conclusion and move on.