Launch of the Amateur Poker Association & Tour (APAT)

[DesD]

2 points,
what you consider constructive is subjective.
So the WPT seat is all points (online AND live) combined?, i thought it was online only..........

Hi IFM,

I believe 'feedback' either adds value to the discussion or it doesn't.  For example your first point above does not add value to this thread (IMO).  Your second point does, and is constructive.  For info, ranking points earned in both live and online events will count towards the player of the year award. 

Regards,

Des.
MD, APL

[ifm]

This is something i feel you don't quite understand, feedback was not requested.
It has been however offered, along with questions relating to this project.
It is entirely up to you whether you deem questions answerable, as a profit making company, privately owned obviously you don't need to answer to anyone.
There is no point having swings at me though.

[thediceman]

Re: ranking points

So ALL POINTS gained from the 7 live events and 26 online tournaments are to be counted and not lets say for an example a players top 10 results. With the live events clearly going to be over subscribed and qualification unknown at this point I believe the overall ranking list will have as much to do with luck as it will do skill. Certain players may get the opportunity to play more live events than somebody else. This is further compounded by the location of the live events as geographically many people will only play a certain events, and only then if they are one of the lucky 120.

Also with the online tournaments being on a Saturday night I believe this unfairly favours Mr Billy "no mates". Looks like the chances of winning the rankings is a non runner for tha majority of people based on limited opportunity to gain any points unless you get lucky enough to play most of the live events and you sacrifice your social life for 26 weeks.

Allow me, in adavnce, to congratulate the APAT's top ranking player Mr Billy "no mates"     

[BrumBilly]

I can't be alone in thinking that THIS THREAD IS GETTING SILLY and there's a danger of creating ill feeling and division here and the following exchange (edited) is an example of something that could get out of hand.



Des.D:   The APAT will continually listen to its members.  That process is invaluable when the feedback is constructive.   


ifm:   what you consider constructive is subjective.


Des.D: [i]I believe 'feedback' either adds value to the discussion or it doesn't.  For example your first point above does not add value to this thread (IMO). 


How do I express my thoughts without introducing another source of ambiguity and risk putting the thread even further on TILT?

Answer is I don't know but I'm gonna try anyway.

To my mind, 'ifm' wasn't having a go here but was instead (correct me if I'm wrong Ian) making a simple point that we all interpret things we want to hear positively and things we don't want to hear negatively (...the sinking feeling when someone calls your untimely bluff). Des stated that there was 'no value' to ifm's first point (it wasn't constructive). I DISAGREE. If an organisation 'welcomes' the thoughts of it's members (and potential members) then it's likely that not everything is going to be music to the ears. These instances should alert the organisation/person to things that need to be addressed. I think it's clear that ifm has, like a fair few others, put some thought into this and has been both critical and constructive (offering potential solutions). This is surely a welcome voice?


From all I've read I'd say that the idea of an APAT is worthy and I believe the Blondites involved ARE 100% genuine in their aims/motives. Their 'love of the game' is in a sense part of the problem as it appears they (understandably) want to do what's right by 'amateurs', 'blondites' and the wider poker playing community. That said, the APAT can't be all things to all players. The poker 'community' is diverse and many of us have 'multiple identities' within it so this is another source of difficulty in drawing up terms of eligibility.

I've got a head full of thoughts regarding the pts system and the tour but my head hurts and I'm thinking that in the time it's taken me to write this (and check the tone) it will probably already be out of date so I'll leave them for another time. Meanwhile, I'll wait along with everyone else to see what develops and wish all those involved the best of luck in coming to a happy resolution in readiness for a successful first event.

Will.

[MPOWER]

Well just spent my £15.

Good Luck to you all.

Regards

M 

[DesD]

Well just spent my £15.

Good Luck to you all.

Regards

M 

Hi MPower,

Access to online events is part of your full membership, so I have refunded the additional £5 you have paid.

Regards,

Des.

[DesD]

To my mind, 'ifm' wasn't having a go here but was instead (correct me if I'm wrong Ian) making a simple point that we all interpret things we want to hear positively and things we don't want to hear negatively (...the sinking feeling when someone calls your untimely bluff). Des stated that there was 'no value' to ifm's first point (it wasn't constructive). I DISAGREE. If an organisation 'welcomes' the thoughts of it's members (and potential members) then it's likely that not everything is going to be music to the ears. These instances should alert the organisation/person to things that need to be addressed. I think it's clear that ifm has, like a fair few others, put some thought into this and has been both critical and constructive (offering potential solutions). This is surely a welcome voice?


From all I've read I'd say that the idea of an APAT is worthy and I believe the Blondites involved ARE 100% genuine in their aims/motives. Their 'love of the game' is in a sense part of the problem as it appears they (understandably) want to do what's right by 'amateurs', 'blondites' and the wider poker playing community. That said, the APAT can't be all things to all players. The poker 'community' is diverse and many of us have 'multiple identities' within it so this is another source of difficulty in drawing up terms of eligibility.

I've got a head full of thoughts regarding the pts system and the tour but my head hurts and I'm thinking that in the time it's taken me to write this (and check the tone) it will probably already be out of date so I'll leave them for another time. Meanwhile, I'll wait along with everyone else to see what develops and wish all those involved the best of luck in coming to a happy resolution in readiness for a successful first event.

Will.

Hi Will,

Thanks for your post.  I truly welcome both positive and negative feedback.  Negative feedback in particular will give the APAT the opportunity to put something right, and that is a good thing. 

I guess I'm a bit direct at times, and that is something that I will have to work on.  It works well in some environments, and not so well in others!

But I can assure you that my intentions are 'very' pro APAT members.  I have, and will continue to work tirelessly to improve the lot of the amateur player. 


Ian,

Apologies, it was not my intention to have a go at you!   

Cheers,

Des.

[AlrightJack]

[/quote]

I have, and will continue to work tirelessly to improve the lot of the amateur player. 


[/quote]

In what ways do you think amateur players currently have a bad lot? In what ways do these differ from the lot of non-amateur players? Is there really anything unique relating to amateur players that needs addressing separately to all poker players as a whole?

I am scratching my head as to why any improvements to the game that could come about as the result of a players association should be unique to amateurs.

[Jon MW]

There is already an organisation for professionals.

[AlrightJack]

There is already an organisation for professionals.

So what?

[Jon MW]

There is already an organisation for professionals.

So what?

So there is already a voice for the professionals. Any issues which concern all poker players can be addressed by both organisations giving a stronger voice. Any issues which fundamentally only affect amateurs can be addressed by APAT.

[AlrightJack]

There is already an organisation for professionals.

So what?

So there is already a voice for the professionals. Any issues which concern all poker players can be addressed by both organisations giving a stronger voice. Any issues which fundamentally only affect amateurs can be addressed by APAT.

...as per my original post, what are the issues that fundamentally only affect amateurs?

[Royal Flush]

There is already an organisation for professionals.

So what?

So there is already a voice for the professionals. Any issues which concern all poker players can be addressed by both organisations giving a stronger voice. Any issues which fundamentally only affect amateurs can be addressed by APAT.

How is a divided voice a stronger voice?

[Jon MW]

There is already an organisation for professionals.

So what?

So there is already a voice for the professionals. Any issues which concern all poker players can be addressed by both organisations giving a stronger voice. Any issues which fundamentally only affect amateurs can be addressed by APAT.

...as per my original post, what are the issues fundamentally only affect amateurs?

I think the most obvious thing is being able to participate - something which the amateur tour is looking to remedy. Other issues such as prize structures and deal making affect both but what an amateur would want could be different from what a professional would want.

Even when an issue to help amateurs is also one which affects professionals, having an emphasis on the amateurs needs will provide a bedrock for the future of poker - the grass roots of any sport, game or activity are what fuels it's long term growth and stability.

[Jon MW]

There is already an organisation for professionals.

So what?

So there is already a voice for the professionals. Any issues which concern all poker players can be addressed by both organisations giving a stronger voice. Any issues which fundamentally only affect amateurs can be addressed by APAT.

How is a divided voice a stronger voice?

Professionals aren't always going to want the same thing as amateurs - hence the need for an organisation for both.