Launch of the Amateur Poker Association & Tour (APAT)

[Claw75]

this is going a bit off topic but, and perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but I've never been aware of any 'cliques' here?  I do think that Adam has been treated a little harshly on this thread though.  Whilst I don't necessarily agree with much of his earlier post, I do think his intention (in helping to define the pro/amateur boundaries) was meant in good faith.

[Wardonkey]

this is going a bit off topic but, and perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but I've never been aware of any 'cliques' here?  I do think that Adam has been treated a little harshly on this thread though.  Whilst I don't necessarily agree with much of his earlier post, I do think his intention (in helping to define the pro/amateur boundaries) was meant in good faith.

I agree, Adam was undoubtedly tactless but so were the responses to his post.

[byronkincaid]

I do think his intention (in helping to define the pro/amateur boundaries) was meant in good faith.

 

[turny]

this is going a bit off topic but, and perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but I've never been aware of any 'cliques' here?  I do think that Adam has been treated a little harshly on this thread though.  Whilst I don't necessarily agree with much of his earlier post, I do think his intention (in helping to define the pro/amateur boundaries) was meant in good faith.

I agree, Adam was undoubtedly tactless but so were the responses to his post.

thank heavens for mr perfect 

[leighton_87]

this is going a bit off topic but, and perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but I've never been aware of any 'cliques' here?  I do think that Adam has been treated a little harshly on this thread though.  Whilst I don't necessarily agree with much of his earlier post, I do think his intention (in helping to define the pro/amateur boundaries) was meant in good faith.

I agree that his post probably was meant in good faith, I have enjoyed a lot of AdamM's posts in the past on different topics.  But the post he took most of the stick for was a bit silly of him.  Calling people benefit cheats and telling me as a student I must be a pro unless I have a part time job, I don't think he thought it through properly.  I play poker for the enjoyment of it, luckily I am a winning player, but at the limits I can afford to play it means I don't win much, maybe $100-$200 a month in a good month and about even in a bad month.  I am by no means a pro and this is certainly not what I live off, or could I afford to live off it.  I live off my £4400 loan, my £1000 grant and money of my parents.

I am not writing this to criticise AdamM or to encourage the criticism, which I feel has been extremely harsh from one or two people in particular.  Just to say that if AdamM is watching that people reacted to something you said that was probably worthy of reacting to but not in the way that some people did it.  If you decide to stay I look forward to reading your posts in the future if not good luck with whatever you do.

[Ginger]

this is going a bit off topic but, and perhaps I'm missing the obvious, but I've never been aware of any 'cliques' here?  I do think that Adam has been treated a little harshly on this thread though.  Whilst I don't necessarily agree with much of his earlier post, I do think his intention (in helping to define the pro/amateur boundaries) was meant in good faith.

I agree, Adam was undoubtedly tactless but so were the responses to his post.

Some possibly, not all.

Adam appears to love to write controversial post's (whether that is intended or not only Adam truly knows) and as such they receive a reaction, that is human nature.

[turny]

people in glasses shouldnt throw stones comes to mind

[TightEnd]

people in glasses shouldnt throw stones comes to mind

because they'd miss the target?

what about if they were in glass houses?

[Acidmouse]

I hate the clicks on here 

[turny]

an old saying i believe in:

if you cant take it you shouldnt of joined  

[thediceman]

I have been subjected to personal insults and threats such as "sorting me out in person",

Here on Blonde?? Who by?

yeah please name names 

It's not really important and the reason why I have never reported anything. I'm more than happy to just laugh it off or fight fire with fire but running to teacher has never been my style  


In response to Karabiners post:

Okay so how about open to anyone who has not ever bought in directly to a festival main event ?

That might be definitive but not too exclusive.

That's pretty much what I was suggesting.  

Simply enough to understand and enforce yet without the complexities of having to produce my last years tax returns or a statement of truth letter from my solicitor as supporting evidence as to my amatuer poker status. It's clear their isn't even a defination what is a poker pro and what is an amateur. It is however easier to define if someone has played in a main event or not thus having experienced the deepstack format. After all the APAT statement is to provide the experience to those recreational players who haven't had the opportunity of playing a deep stacked tournament before.

The additional bonus is that it allows those recreational players like yourself who make a small profit, whether that helps you get by or not, to play in a deepstack structured tournament which you haven't played before but excludes those who have.  

[ifm]

Leave Adam alone!!
Yes this place can appear cliquey (an old subject BTW) but just recently some folks have thought it right to attack others openly on the forum, this is not right and shouldn't be allowed.
Lighten up FFS

[Newmanseye]

I have bit of a serious question to ask, just to let everyone know I have joined and think it's a great idea,

however the question is  how do we tell the difference between a professional and an amateur?

Answer is 42...

I see what Tank replied to this, however i think war may have been refering to the answer to the question in Hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy. I could be wrong.

 

[tikay]

Strewth! Taken half the night to read through this.

It's just not possible to reply to every Post, but I'll try to do what I can.

But first off, much respect to Tighty, for holding the fort in my absence. And to all those who have given their time to make constructive Posts, for or against, be it the concept, or the detail.

We never said we knew how to move this forward, precisely or correctly, but someone had to start somewhere, & we did.

Those that questioned our motives, well, we won't dignify their Posts with a reply. A few Posts & Posters clearly had hidden agendas. So be it. Others were just "mischievous", well, this is a fun Forum, whatever turns you on & all that. but the vast majority of the Posts were well-intentioned, & we are most grateful. The whole idea is to take feedback, formalise it, & implement, or lobby for implementation.

The astonishing thing is the amount of interest, so at least we know the need & desire is there.

OK, it's 0450, & I have to meet a friend at Manchester Airport at 0900, so I need to be away by 0600.

I'll break my replies into "sections", to make them easier to reply to.

Much of what I say will be "thinking out loud", rather than the final answer, or solution, & I need to debate many of these things with my colleagues, &, most importantly, the Members - more of which in due course.

OK, here goes.

By the way, the suggestion that we don't answer questions was, of course, tongue-in-cheek, but we have been overwhelmed & a "little" surprised by the amount of interest, so apologies for not responding to some stuff faster. Everything will be answered, in due course, but the last few days have been a tad hectic. Interestingly, there have been some nice developments on bB3, which I know you'll be pleased about, so I've not been slacking........We will save those for another day.

Oh, one last thing, before I get started. Rumours start very easily, a slip of the tongue, or whatever, & become "fact" in a flash, & it's clear blonde has it's share of cynics & non-believers.  blondeite Jon MW has been pretty supportive in his replies, so much so, that in conversation with a few blondes yesterday & today, they actually thought he (or she?) was part of APAT. This is not so (so far as I know!), &, I hope I don't give offence here but I don't think I know the Member. Just thought I'd clear that up. Can't be too careful!

[tikay]

Structure

Mel devised the structure.

We gave her the brief "assume 75 players, (optimistic, we thought), 10k starting points, 14 hours playing time, net of breaks".

She devised the first one, & Des, Tighty & myself approved it. There were arguments & debate but we can't all have our own way, & we all backed Draft 1. Compromise is essential.

Structures are subjective.

I'd prefer to see 150-300, but we have to compromise - we can only have so many levels in 14 hours net.

We WILL review it pre-Event one.

We WILL review it Post Event One.

We will NOT change it mid-event. What we start an event with, we go all the way with.

It's not a problem, not at all. Structures are easy to adjust.

We WILL canvass our Members extensively about this at Event One.

In due course (it's tough when we are only 3 days old) we will form a Committee of Members, & take on board their views on Structures. Until then, we will listen, look, & decide.

No two people on earth, given the straitjcket we gave Mel to work within, would come up with the same structure.

I am no expert on Structures. Many blondes are, it seems.....!

This one is easy.