Launch of the Amateur Poker Association & Tour (APAT)

[thetank]

How is a divided voice a stronger voice?

Having more than one voice on the go is surely at the root of democracy.

[DesD]

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?

Hi AlrightJack,

A great number of the issues are common across all poker players - no question. 

But there are points of difference, eg a lot of amateurs would find a £30 rebuy, with a short clock and 1,000 chips, an intimidating first casino experience.  The APAT aims to give them something approaching a festival main event experience with low exposure and strong added value.

Associations primarily focussed on the leading players have been tried before and appear to have failed.   I think what we are seeing with the WPA at the moment is a good example.  Jesse Jones has put a great deal of effort into putting a structure in place to give players a 'single voice' in poker, yet Harry D is discussing WSOP issues directly with Harrahs, and Howard Lederer and Co are discussing image rights concerns directly with the WPT.  As a segment of the poker playing market, it is my opinion that the top tier have yet to prove that they can unify to improve their position in the game. 

The amateur end on the other hand appears desperate for a more welcoming experience.  In volume terms, there are many more amateurs than professionals and when it comes to negotiating with leading organisations in this country, volume and true support of the issues will count.

One thing that my colleagues and I did not anticipate when launching the APAT was the interest that it would generate from the 'tier two' professionals (lower bankroll - no insult intended to anyone), who it would appear are closer in their needs to the amateur scene than the everyday EPT / WPT / WSOP scene.

This has left us in a quandary and has been much debated inside and outside of this thread.  We want to negotiate on behalf of everybody, but essentially we are the Amateur Poker Association & Tour. 

I think we can indirectly improve the game for everybody through standardisation of rules and player friendly structures.  If we can prove our model works, then professional players may gain the confidence to get behind a single organisation, as they have not done before.  That organisation may be driven by someone else, or it may be a professional division of APAT.  That I genuinely do not know.   It is not beyond the bounds of reason that we might schedule an APAT Pro Am in season one.  We might be able to learn from an event like that. 

Cheers,

Des.

[AlrightJack]

Thanks for your response Des. My thoughts on the APAT are that I agree that there is a need for a players association but do not agree with the need to label it amateur or professional.

It is very difficult to fully distinguish or police who is a professional or an amateur. It is largely down to perceived wisdom or a players own admission, that they are deemed to be a pro. A player's status as pro could also be due to a single big windfall win that enables them to give up their day job and claim poker as a profession.

The lines of disctinction between what classifies a pro or an amateur are blurred. Does pro/am refer to whether one makes a living from it or not; or is it merely a way of alluding to whether someone is a good player or a bad player? Or very lucky or unlucky. It would be more accurated and far less controversial to call it a recreational players association than an amateur one.

Additionally, I feel that any tour should be an entirely separate entity to any players rights organisation. I'm not  comfortable with the two going hand in hand, especially where membership fees for the association are going towards some of the costs associated with the tour. Also the existence of a profit making holding company wholly or majorly owning a non-profit making players association sits uneasingly with me as I'm sure it does with many others. What came first, the chicken or the egg?  Is the tour a vehicle for the association or is it the other way round? Why the need for a profit making company to own a players rights organisation?

I'm in Vegas and its late so I'm off to bed now. I'm just asing the questions that a lot of people are thinking. Sorry if u've addressed some of this before but its such a long thread now that it would take too much time to read it all again to check...

[dik9]

Thanks for your response Des. My thoughts on the APAT are that I agree that there is a need for a players association but do not agree with the need to label it amateur or professional.

It is very difficult to fully distinguish or police who is a professional or an amateur. It is largely down to perceived wisdom or a players own admission, that they are deemed to be a pro. A player's status as pro could also be due to a single big windfall win that enables them to give up their day job and claim poker as a profession.

The lines of disctinction between what classifies a pro or an amateur are blurred. Does pro/am refer to whether one makes a living from it or not; or is it merely a way of alluding to whether someone is a good player or a bad player? Or very lucky or unlucky. It would be more accurated and far less controversial to call it a recreational players association than an amateur one.

Additionally, I feel that any tour should be an entirely separate entity to any players rights organisation. I'm not  comfortable with the two going hand in hand, especially where membership fees for the association are going towards some of the costs associated with the tour. Also the existence of a profit making holding company wholly or majorly owning a non-profit making players association sits uneasingly with me as I'm sure it does with many others. What came first, the chicken or the egg?  Is the tour a vehicle for the association or is it the other way round? Why the need for a profit making company to own a players rights organisation?

I'm in Vegas and its late so I'm off to bed now. I'm just asing the questions that a lot of people are thinking. Sorry if u've addressed some of this before but its such a long thread now that it would take too much time to read it all again to check...

Thank You, some sense, I was beginning to lose my marbles and getting the feeling of being unwelcome after making the same points.

[Jon MW]

...My thoughts on the APAT are that I agree that there is a need for a players association but do not agree with the need to label it amateur or professional. ...

Money talks - if professional poker players united behind an organisation they would be the one's who would be able to influence it the most. This would lead to the minority of poker players (the professionals) having disproportionate influence over the majority (the amateur). I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be separate representation for both.

...It is very difficult to fully distinguish or police who is a professional or an amateur. It is largely down to perceived wisdom or a players own admission, that they are deemed to be a pro....

This is true, I don't see any way that could be entirely unambiguous but a definition as a guideline would at least give a starting point.

.. A player's status as pro could also be due to a single big windfall win that enables them to give up their day job and claim poker as a profession.

The lines of disctinction between what classifies a pro or an amateur are blurred. Does pro/am refer to whether one makes a living from it or not; or is it merely a way of alluding to whether someone is a good player or a bad player? Or very lucky or unlucky....

The usual definition of amateur is related to not earning money, but as that is what we deal in you couldn't really only define amateurs as losing players! This is why my view is that the definition should be based on tournament winnings or ranking points and not tournament entries. This would not penalise someone just because they're rich and wouldn't penalise anyone who just saved hard to enter big tournaments. Obviously it does relate to skill, but you can't really get away from the fact that you would expect a group of professional anything to be better than amateurs (e.g. professional league football players and amateur non-league footballers).

...Additionally, I feel that any tour should be an entirely separate entity to any players rights organisation. I'm not  comfortable with the two going hand in hand, especially where membership fees for the association are going towards some of the costs associated with the tour....

I can see your point but it does provide a basis for ensuring that the tour is run in the best interest of the players. If the WSOP was run by a players organisation would you see so many disputes for example? A comparison can be made with the English Chess Federation which runs its own tournaments.

...Also the existence of a profit making holding company wholly or majorly owning a non-profit making players association sits uneasingly with me as I'm sure it does with many others....

I personally see the profit motive of a commercial owner providing the stability for the future existence of the organisation. But to be honest that argument doesn't really interest me.

... getting the feeling of being unwelcome after making the same points.

I think that most of the arguments and counter-arguments put forward in this thread have been genuinely meant as either wishing to seek clarification or defending the position which they believe in and think is for the good of the game. Anybody else is easy to ignore.

Personally I think these opposing views have meant that any points raised have been examined fairly extensively from both sides of the argument and  this scrutiny can only be for the benefit of the decision makers in APAT.

[byronkincaid]

A few days ago we were all just poker players nothing more nothing less. Now some of us are this, some of us are that, some of us are allowed to join the scooby gang some of us aren't.

And now we have arguments and divisions and vested interests (myself included) and it seems to be leading to ever smaller pigeon holes into which we can push players who we may or may not want to play against.

As I write this I'm listening to an old 1989 mix tape. 1989 is known as the golden era of rave music when everyone was listening to the same tunes and dancing together. That didn't last very long though. Soon we split up into those who liked techno who were much cooler than those who liked house who hated those who liked hardcore who really couldn't understand how people could listen to garage. And the splits and divisions have carried on ever since, until there are probably hundreds of tiny little sub sectors of dance music all of whom think they have a superior taste in music to the others.

Perhaps sometime in the future we'll look back on the days when anyone who had the buyin could enter any tournament they wanted to, as the golden days of poker?

I hope not.

 

[bolt pp]

A few days ago we were all just poker players nothing more nothing less. Now some of us are this, some of us are that, some of us are allowed to join the scooby gang some of us aren't.

And now we have arguments and divisions and vested interests (myself included) and it seems to be leading to ever smaller pigeon holes into which we can push players who we may or may not want to play against.

As I write this I'm listening to an old 1989 mix tape. 1989 is known as the golden era of rave music when everyone was listening to the same tunes and dancing together. That didn't last very long though. Soon we split up into those who liked techno who were much cooler than those who liked house who hated those who liked hardcore who really couldn't understand how people could listen to garage. And the splits and divisions have carried on ever since, until there are probably hundreds of tiny little sub sectors of dance music all of whom think they have a superior taste in music to the others.

Perhaps sometime in the future we'll look back on the days when anyone who had the buyin could enter any tournament they wanted to, as the golden days of poker?

I hope not.

 

Great Post

[Jon MW]

"...who had the buy in..." is the operative phrase. There is a split between amateur and professional already (with a big grey bit in the middle) because most people can't afford to buy in to a pro's tournament.

To restrict something to amateur takes some artifice but doesn't create a split that wasn't there to start with.

Don't be  be  , always look on the bright side of life.

[jezza777]

My first post on this thread so I would just like to start by saying good luck to Tighty , Tk , Mel et al .


I have serious problems with the previous posters coment tho.


"...who had the buy in..." is the operative phrase. There is a split between amateur and professional already (with a big grey bit in the middle) because most people can't afford to buy in to a pro's tournament.

Please can you define a "pro's tournament"? The level of buyin has absolutely no relevence to wether pro players play in it or not.

I am reluctant to call myself a proffessional poker player , however for the last couple of months poker has been paying my mortgage and living expenses. I can't believe that i wouldn't come into the ameture deifnition and be eliable to play in the APAT.

I await clarification on the definition of amateur.

[tikay]

Afternoon all.

Will get to work on this thread soonest, I still have some issues to Post, meanwhile, just addressing one Post for now....

Thanks AlrightJack, some thought-provoking stuff in there. For those who don't know this guy personally, he's as genuine as they come, & a special friend.

I'll just address one point now, which particularly caught my eye, & is in the "contentious" area, shall we say.

AJ says "what came first, the chicken or the egg, was this an attempt to form a players body, & hey we may make some cash", or "lets make some money, a Players Association is the way"?

I really don't know the answer to that, because it was not my idea, but at a guess, it was probably conceived as a commercial venture. Fulfilling a demand is the mother of most commercial entities.

I'm not too good with articulating my thoughts into words, so I use a lot of analogies, some of which are a tad obscure, but anyway, here's my analogy.

Remember Jimmy Saville, OBE? Raised absolute fortunes for Charity. But many said he did it raise his profile, from which he earned a small fortune, so his motives were not necessarily "pure". My thoughts were always "so what?". I don't care WHAT his motives were, or how much money he made for himself as a result. The fact is, he stimulated the collection of  huge amounts of money for charity, & good causes. So it was a good thing, on balance.

DesD, & APAT? I never knew him pre APAT. I know this though. He gave me the chance to do what so many of us have said needs doing, get some structure & organisation into Poker, & he also gave me independence & authority in that orignisation by installing me, for year one, as Chairman. It's just a start, building some foundations really. OK, I'm getting some grief, but no pain, no gain. Even if his motives are profit-driven, the net result - already, & we've barely begun - is, in Season One, something like, if we value an EPT seat & package as, say, €7,000, & we add in the WPT & WSOP packages, around €100,000 of added money. Not many can say they have done that. And it's down to his business acumen that he's persuaded the likes of PokerStars to add that money. So really, I don't care or mind what his motives are, or whether he earns a few bob. WE - the players, (the eligible ones)  - are ahead already, financially, AND we get the chance to lobby Members views, unify the rules, get some dialogue going with the Casinos & GC. We are ahead of the game already, as I see it.

And why "recreational" players? Well someone has to start somewhere, why not there? Consider this, which blows my mind. I've always voiced the view that the "faces" in Poker represent the tip of the iceberg, 0.00?% of the Poker village, but the foot-soldiers deserve some acknowledgement as well as the Celebs. Last Christmas, one chain of Department Stores - not a supermarket, a Department Store Chain - ONE chain - sold 1,200,000 poker related gifts. ONE POINT TWO MILLION! From ONE Chain! See the size of the "recreational" market? And how, if we could unify & organise, what, 5% of that market, what a wonderful opportunity to begin the long-overdue process of helping to make things better for Tournment Poker players. Does everyone think Tournament Players are well-looked after? No, not everyone does, & someone has to start somewhere. This is my contribution. If it fails, it fails, & all that will have happened is that €100k of added money was spread around the poker economy. If it works, then conditions for Tournament players of all categories will be better. We Pokerists moan a lot, but sometimes with good reason - unpunctual start times, poorly structured comps, Rules that change mid-comp, Structures that change mid-comp, sometimes because TV finances say so, (without reimbursing the players), da de da de da. My APAT colleagues & I are trying to do something about it. The bumps & bruises smart a bit, but the shed-load of PM's & e-Mails I've had supporting the idea are the perfect medicine.

An organisation for all, or just Pro players? They exist, already, that truly brave man (he's overcome huge health problems) Jesse Jones started one. How many of you are Members?

I was invited, personally, to join an umbrella-type Poker Body a while back, so I asked to see the Constitution. The Board was 100% "names", & the names were described as "Senior Members". Senior meaning they got "weighted" voting rights. Meaning their votes counted for twice as much as "ordinary" Members. I questioned this. They said, "well, the Senior Members have Image Rights to negotiate". Bully for them, but it's not a deal of use to me &  Billy Foot-Soldier. Faces & recreational players have many different issues to address, and some are "common".

John Duthie started the EPT, & it took a while to get it tight. It's spot-on now. These things take a while to get right, & so will APAT. But we think we are doing the right thing. Your (everyone) feedback is part of that process, & we are grateful for it, though in due course, obviously, it will be the Members collective voice that will count most.

It's all subjective, & we are all entitled to our opinions. I've talked the talk, now I'm having a bash at walking the walk, along with my APAT colleagues. But I can see why so few have tried to do it! Then again, I played my first proper Live Tourney since Launch Day yesterday, in Walsall, & was overwhelmed by the number of people who said supportive things about APAT, it was, well, emotional......

[Jon MW]

My first post on this thread so I would just like to start by saying good luck to Tighty , Tk , Mel et al .


I have serious problems with the previous posters coment tho.


"...who had the buy in..." is the operative phrase. There is a split between amateur and professional already (with a big grey bit in the middle) because most people can't afford to buy in to a pro's tournament.

Please can you define a "pro's tournament"? The level of buyin has absolutely no relevence to wether pro players play in it or not.

I am reluctant to call myself a proffessional poker player , however for the last couple of months poker has been paying my mortgage and living expenses. I can't believe that i wouldn't come into the ameture deifnition and be eliable to play in the APAT.

I await clarification on the definition of amateur.

Stripping out the influence of satellites the level of buy in will always determine who plays in it. Of the hundreds of thousands of people who play poker in the UK only  a minority will be able to afford to pay the five thousand Euros to enter an EPT event for example (plus the travel and accommodation cost). The players who will are the fortunate few who have the disposable income to be able to do so from other means, and the professionals.

My personal view would be that if somebody was earning enough income over a whole year (not just a matter of months) to pay their mortgage and living expenses then this would make them a professional. But I wouldn't want any of this thread to be considered directly confrontational and as you say we will have to see what the official line from APAT is.

[jezza777]

Jon,

I am also keen not to become confrontational , our views on professional players differ thats all. The one thing I absolutley love about poker is that it is not exclusive ( until now). If you have the buyin you can sit down and take your chances.

My point about the level of buyin is that there are plenty of people who play £10 - £100 rebuys or freezeouts who make their living doing this. Can they be considered any less proffessional than the players who are playing EPT's or are touring the curcuit?

[Jon MW]

Jon,

I am also keen not to become confrontational , our views on professional players differ thats all. The one thing I absolutley love about poker is that it is not exclusive ( until now). If you have the buyin you can sit down and take your chances.

My point about the level of buyin is that there are plenty of people who play £10 - £100 rebuys or freezeouts who make their living doing this. Can they be considered any less proffessional than the players who are playing EPT's or are touring the curcuit?

No, not at all. Some of what I have written is less concerned with the technical accuracy of a definition than with a workable solution to ensuring grass roots representation doesn't get overwhelmed by almost-professional/semi-professional representation. These will all be technically amateurs but would represent a much narrower field than the whole of the base of the poker pyramid. Cash earnings for example are totally unpoliceable and as such are hardly worth considering.

Professionals can enter £10 rebuys that amateurs can enter, this doesn't alter the fact that amateurs by and large can't enter a five thousand euro freezeout that professionals can, because the average grassroots player can't afford to spend thousands on a poker tournament. Doesn't this just further illustrate that this isn't creating a split?

[tikay]

Jon,

I am also keen not to become confrontational , our views on professional players differ thats all. The one thing I absolutley love about poker is that it is not exclusive ( until now). If you have the buyin you can sit down and take your chances.

My point about the level of buyin is that there are plenty of people who play £10 - £100 rebuys or freezeouts who make their living doing this. Can they be considered any less proffessional than the players who are playing EPT's or are touring the curcuit?

Hi Jezza, hope you, & more importantly, Kezza, are both in good heart. Those split ends worry me though. I use Johnsons Baby Shampoo. No tears.

I was about to respond to your Post, but Jon MW must have read my mind, so that's it, job done!

See you soon, take care now.

[Wardonkey]

"...who had the buy in..." is the operative phrase. There is a split between amateur and professional already (with a big grey bit in the middle) because most people can't afford to buy in to a pro's tournament.

This statement is laughable. I would guesstimate that 90% of festival players have some sort of income other than poker. Of the other 10%, half are skint or playing outside thier bankroll.

The amount that someone is willing to pay to enter a tournament has nothing to do with the professional/amateur arguement.

Jon MW seems assume that; professional = wealthy and that amatuer = less wealthy. All to often the reverse is true. Many if not most of the most skilled and successful poker players in this country have incomes from outside sources which allow them to ride 'the variance wave' with much more confidence than the full-time unsponsored professional.