Launch of the Amateur Poker Association & Tour (APAT)

[Colchester Kev]

Tikay, I'm not trying to have a go or make your life any more difficult than it already is. I just keep getting drawn back into the arguement.

I fully understand that your target market is the 'recreational player', I understand the reasons for this and I think this the correct the correct stategy to achieve the goals of the organisation.

I think a misjudgement has been made in the decision to exclude 'professional' players. I think it is inevitable that this will cause big problems for you at some point. I also don't see the point in deliberatley excluding potential customers.

I will be quiet now, I've made my point. As you have said it's your train set, if you won't let me buy a platform ticket then there's not much point in me hanging around the station shouting at porters...  

And I see you are entered for tonight's Super League Tourney (previously known as SuperBlinds I thnk), I'm looking forward to that, playing poker instead of talking about it! Behave, if you are on my table. You know I'm Weak/Passive.

Is that a Pro Tourney ??   

[tikay]

Well it's for Grown-Ups Kev, but the PRO woud be most welcome. It seems ages snce I've been called "MUG".

[Wardonkey]

I'm being quiet.

(Check the Super League leaderboard)

Be nice to me Tikay, or I may just nick your blinds instead of instigating a slowdown when you disconnect!

[dik9]

If you are after the recreational player (the 99.99%) that do not frequent casinos, and those that have signed up, must all have access to computers, then surely an online comp (freeroll) can determine the entries, dangle a carrot for the pro's to go for and the first 120 out of the comp get the seats. That was said sort of tongue-in-cheek, but it is a thought.

In Fact get the sponsors i.e. Poker Player and Pokerstars, to offer a freeroll with the first prize being " a sponsored Pro Player for Pokerstars" up to a certain Value. Would generate a huge freeroll, increase your membership and put APAT firmly on the map. So everyone will want to win it, the winner will be excluded from all APAT events and the worst 120 can then be truely identified as the amatuers. You could do this for each live event. The amount of money they would make through people joining their site would mean they probably wouldn't even make a loss.

[tikay]

I'm being quiet.

(Check the Super League leaderboard)

Be nice to me Tikay, or I may just nick your blinds instead of instigating a slowdown when you disconnect!

No need, I'm out.

[Karabiner]

Agreed Tom. But I'd wager that 99% of those that play Poker have never played it in a Casino.

How much ?

[tikay]

CORRECTION.

Earlier, I Posted that 1,200,000 (ONE POINT TWO MILLION) Poker Related gifts were sold in ONE Department Store chain alone, in the UK, last Christmas.

This was incorrect, I am informed by my source, I misunderstood what I had read.

1,200,000 (ONE POINT TWO MILLION) Poker related gifts were sold in the UK last Christmas across the Retail Market, NOT in one chain. On reflection, my original Post was obviously wrong.

Sorry!

[ripple11]

 ...caught bluffing again Tikay

[Tractor]

No it was a genuine misread 

[ifm]

Ok i may need to clarify my position in this debate.
I also have had many personal messages regarding my participation in this thread, 2 were wondering why i was trying to cause trouble but the overwhelming majority were basically saying that they are glad i am being "awkward".
Firstly i am not being deliberately awkward, never have and never will, i just got plonked with this association representing ME and was curious as to how it worked.
There were the initial mix ups regarding a couple of points (juice is one) that have been cleared up, there are others outstanding and indeed more that seem to have been missed (more on those in a tick).
I have a problem with people stepping forward to shout my corner without prior consultation, it makes me uneasy.
I can see the problem though, do we ask for support then form an association or do it then see what people think?
The first way would take forever so realistically the second is the only really viable option, good, fine, ok.........BUT the problem here is that by starting off with people in place means that THEIR views/concepts/vision will be the driving force.
There is also the argument whether it is indeed needed but i have no real view on this as i have a fantastic choice of buyins/structures/payouts/juice etc. on my doorstep (i am priveledged (sp?) in that respect.
Now, 2 questions........what does this association (representing me) actually want the casinos to do? How do they expect to be able to achieve these aims?
The first question is in part answered by the buyin/clock/structure/payout of the first event, medium buyin/long clock/added value/no deals.
The no deals thing stands out, why does an association (representing me) want to tell me i cannot do with my money what i want?..........very unhappy with this as have others involved in this in the past.
An association (representing me) that is there as a profit making organisation in my mind is wrong, wrong, wrong, where is the incentive? Money is the incentive and with shareholders in mind the priority over much (if not all) else.
While i have no doubt whatsoever as to the genuineness (is that a word?) of Tikay and Tighty they are not in charge, the limited company is.
I asked in this thread if the sponsors are paying the association, i would still like to know.
This post is already longer than intended so i'll cut it now.
I would like to know what i am being offered apart from possible entry into a great looking event and what i am agreeing to let the association negotiate for me.
I don't know if this is a good idea or not, i simply do not have the information, i like to think that this is exactly what i want/need and i would like to back it, seriously!!!

[ifm]

I also wanted to know if the members could vote off any of the "committee?"

[tikay]

OK, another day where I have not finished getting up to date on my "thinking out loud" process, where I am attempting to lay out clearly the responses to all your questions. I'm a little tired, & need to get some sleep, so this will be the last one today.

Registration Fee etc

There was much noise earlier in the thread about this. Let me try & clarify the situation.

Our discussions with The Broadway, &. via them, the GC, did not involve me personally, though I had much input to, & right of veto of, whatever APAT put forward.

Our point of contact at The Broadway was Dave Jones (Colin Jones?) & he is, I think, their Compliance Officer. We had to agree our requirements with him, & he had to get GC Approval. A difficult way of doing things, but thats how it works.

Bear in mind, for Compliance reasons, that although we have our "own" pre-agreed Rules, & the GC approved them (via Mr Jones), and we have our own Tournament Director, in Mel Lofthouse, overall responsibility for remaining GC compliant still rests with The Host Venue, in the case of Event One, the Broadway. So they sort of oversee us, & in the event of a dispute, they woud, tehnically, have the last word.

So that's the background.

Anyway, we all agreed our Rule "wish-list", Des then ran them across The Broadway, who in turn attempted to agree them with the GC.

Eventually, the GC got back to The Broadway, & they in turn to us. To our delight, they accepted "our" rules almost 100%.

But there was one cavet, as I recall, and it appears, looking back at this, as the first of a series of misunderstandings.

Des came back to Tighty & I, & said that either the GC or The Broadway had insisted that the Reg Fee had to be shown separate. What Reg Fee, I thought? We had agreed there would not be one! Anyway,we were fixed in our mind - £75 was the figure we wanted, so if a  Reg Fee was required, it was clearly necessary to reduce it to £67.50 & add the 10%. Wrong! That should have been £68-something + 10%.

This error by us then got it's own little life, with Posters rightly pointing out that £67.50 + 10% does not come to £75....Hands up, our error, but I'd like to think you don't really think we'd try & skim off about a quid!

Meanwhile, somehow we allowed the notion - advertised it in fact - that there old be a Reg Fee "built in" to the £75. And that in turn caused speculation that the APAT were pocketing the £7.50, as The Broadway do not charge a Reg Fee. That was never going to be the case.

We chatted through how to deal with this error, which was down to us, via these misunderstandings.

A suggestion was made internally that we charge the £68-something, & give the balance (from £75 TOTAL) to Charity. I think we all pretty much agreed that the best way to handle this was to stick with the original idea.

So the comp at The Broadway will be £75 Entry, no juice. Full stop.

Food & buffets will be provided free of charge. I hope The Broadway will provide this, if they don't, we will. £75 Entry, no juice, no extras, nothing at all. Provided by them or us - does it matter? - everyone who plays Event One is going to be well looked after.

I note, when I Previewed this Post, an interesting Post by ifm, which I will deal with immediately.

[Dewi_cool]

Can't understand why 'people' would be glad that your being awkward ( not that I agree that your being awk) if 'people' dont like the idea, they don't have to join, simple innit!!

[ifm]

Can't understand why 'people' would be glad that your being awkward ( not that I agree that your being awk) if 'people' dont like the idea, they don't have to join, simple innit!!

People do want to join Dewi, i do!!
I simply want to know more about it.

[tikay]

I also wanted to know if the members could vote off any of the "committee?"

There is no Committee yet ifm, until we get up & runnng there can't be.

As APAT Chairman, I intend to seek Committee Members, & we will form a Members Committee, immediately after Event One I will commence the process.

My tenure is for Year One only. At the end of Year One, the Members will vote for the new Chairman, I have Posted my stance about this earlier in the thread.

I have not given consideration as to whether Members can vote me off in Year One, & institute their democratic rights as normally apply in an Association. I doubt it, as I was selected, not Elected. In year two, of course, Members will have etablished their Committee, & can presumably vote their Chairman on or off.

The straight answer is once the Members have Elected a Committee, I guess it's up to them to vote them on or off.