Launch of the Amateur Poker Association & Tour (APAT)

[dik9]

That clears everything up re reg fees, and thank you for informing members that.

Can I just put a little spanner in the works re charity, as many have tried before to do this. All entry money must go towards the Prize pool, if there is a reg fee then that can go to charity, but if there is no reg fee and lets say the entry raised is £9000 then £9000 must be paid out. Any charity donations must be made voluntarily, by the players themselves. Sorry to keep being a pain, but the GC are funny buggers.

Sorry scratch that last paragraph, just re read Tikays post and think i may have misunderstood.

[tikay]

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!!!

Hi Ian,

Where to begin?

"just got plonked with the Association". We have to start somewhere, I can't see the problem, entry is voluntary, though I'd love you to be a part of it. It represents it's Members, & if you become a Member, it will "hear your voice" loud & clear.

Until & unless you become a Member, we are not standing your corner. If/when you do, we will, & the Members will be part of the "shouting your corner" process.

What comes first, the "demand" or the Association? As I said, we have to start somewhere, & we have. The need has (arguably) been there a while, we have done it now, but everyone has the right to join or not, assuming they are eligible. It's not forced on anyone. If there is not a need for it, Members will not join it. "Market Forces" ensure that.

What do we expect the Casinos to do? We hope that in "our" Events, we can have standardised Rules, good structues, 10k Starting Chips for £75, punctual & well-run comps, with an EPT Seat thrown in on top, Members treated with a bit of civility, all the things I have said in this thread. I don't believe such a package is readily available in too many places right now. It's my aim, intention & desire to ensure all the APAT Members who attend will have  good day or two, & I don't expect to let them down.

I will make this a two-part reply, & continue shortly.

In the interim, your detailed set of questions is appreciated.

[tikay]

That clears everything up re reg fees, and thank you for informing members that.

Can I just put a little spanner in the works re charity, as many have tried before to do this. All entry money must go towards the Prize pool, if there is a reg fee then that can go to charity, but if there is no reg fee and lets say the entry raised is £9000 then £9000 must be paid out. Any charity donations must be made voluntarily, by the players themselves. Sorry to keep being a pain, but the GC are funny buggers.

Sorry scratch that last paragraph, just re read Tikays post and think i may have misunderstood.

Before I continue with the reply to ifm, lets just put this to bed properly.

The Entry Fee will be £75. If 10 people enter, we will pay out £750.

If 50 enter, then £3,750 will be paid out.

If 100 enter, £7,500 will be the Prize Pool, & £7,500 will be paid out.

It's not likely, as I believe I said, we will go the Charity Route. But if we were to, we know what we can & cannot do in that respect. Should APAT make any charitable donations at any time in the future (nothing planned) we will ensure total transparency as to how much is raised, from whence it came, & to whom it is given, & it will be subject to independent Audit. As Chairman, I would demand, & ensure, that.

Please assume it's £75 Entry Fee, no juice, & every penny paid out.

Notwithstanding what the GC, The Venues, or anyone else says, the total Entry Fees will be paid out, on the day, in full. Plus the EPT Seat. I'd like to think that given my involvement, everyone took that as read.

I hope that makes the position absolutely clear.

Thank you for the opportunity to clear that up.

 

[dik9]

Clear, sorry for confusing the issue

[tikay]

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!!!

OK, to continue with this.

No deals. It's a concept. We want to do this a little different. We want to see someone win their EPT seat outright, & go live the dream, the guy in the street playing an EPT, sat next to the big boys. Introduce "business", & the Seat gets complicated. Can we stop deals? We shall see. We shall certainly do our best. But before Members join, they know our stance on deals, so it's their choice. If they cannot accept our view on deals, I guess they won't join. It's not a problem, it's for the individual to decide if he likes our proposed package. Ordinarily, I believe players have the right to deal. This is a different concept, at least we want it to be.

The Profit motive. I have Posted on this at length earlier, & I fully respect the fact that not everyone agrees. I don't really have much to add to what I Posted on this subject earlier, except that it's for individuals to decide if it's an acceptable package before they join. The thick end of €100,000 will be adeed to the Prize Pool by way of EPT, WPT & WSOP Seats & Packages in Season One. If the guy who negotiated that deal earns a few bob, good luck to him. "My" Members will be nearly €100,000 ahead. Thats what matters to me.

APA are in charge of APAT? If they want to keep me, (I have a year before the next Chairman gets elected) they have to accept my recommendations & input. End of. Am I strong enough to do that? Not for me to say, you must make your own judgement. I'd say, for £10 (£5 via PokerPlayer I believe) it's hardly the most risky bet in the world.

"Are the sponsors paying the associaton?". Can you clarify what you mean, please? The deal with the sponsors was negotiated by APA, & I don't know the nuts & bolts, nor do I need or wish to. I do know that my Members will enjoy the benefit of nearly €100,000 of added value. They (the Sponsors) are certainly not paying me, neither are APA. The role is Honorary. I have detailed all this in my initial Post, on, I think, "tikay & APAT". I think I am missing your point here Ian, can you clarify what you mean, please?

What are you being offered? I have told you everything I know, barring the remaining answers to a few questions, and I have given my word that I will answer every question.

I hope you decide it's a god idea. I cant, personally, see much downside for £5 or £10, but we all see these things differently.

I hope that deals with most of your excellent Post, for which I thank you.

[tikay]

If you have any APAT-specific questions, feel free to write to me at "tony@apat.com".

My blonde PM box has so far had around 120 APAT related "incoming", my private e-mail 30 or more, my blonde e-addy a few, & I've dealt with the majority of them. I will deal with the balance soonest, except the few insulting ones, which suggest APAT are conning Members, or I am part of some scam, & I'll not dignify those with a reply. Several - 8 or more - are from blondes apologising for being over-aggressive on the open Forum. Quite why some of the Posts are so aggressive & confrontational is a mystery to me, but then many things are. I've lost a "friend" or two as well, such is life.

Would-be Members have a choice to join or not to join. I hope you do, because I think it wil be a fun thing.

Hope you had a good weekend, & that I bump into a few of you at Luton this week.

Take care now.

[RioRodent]

Do you hold a online freeroll for all members wanting and able to attend the event with the top 120 qualify.

Or maybe the bottom 120...

Just in case this were being considered.... I must voice my objection to it.

Both my wife and myself have joined and we both want to play... only one of us would be able to play any online qualifier.

[matt674]

No deals. It's a concept. We want to do this a little different. We want to see someone win their EPT seat outright, & go live the dream, the guy in the street playing an EPT, sat next to the big boys. Introduce "business", & the Seat gets complicated. Can we stop deals? We shall see. We shall certainly do our best. But before Members join, they know our stance on deals, so it's their choice. If they cannot accept our view on deals, I guess they won't join. It's not a problem, it's for the individual to decide if he likes our proposed package. Ordinarily, I believe players have the right to deal. This is a different concept, at least we want it to be.

Not all Grosvenors have such a top heavy payout structure and we do increase our payouts from 18th to 10th but only with 3 stages not 4. But I can only speak for Blackpool. 

Plus if you get paid you will make at least a small profit on your investment.

During our weekly comps we run a flattish structure, not as flat as Gala Notts. But as flat as we could make it without the death threats eminating from the poker playing fraternity. Some well thoughts of professional players actually threatened me after I ran Festival events with a 30% first prize.

So perhaps not all professional players quite understand the theory behind "Flatter Payouts"

Also, the comment about it's your money. Some people, who work in the casino industry, will argue hard and long against that. To Quote. "It's not their money until they are knocked out." Not my opinion but one that is still around and being used.


Yogi

A good, well-reasoned & thoughtful Post by Yogi, as always.

But the final para troubles me.

It IS the players money, until & unless a sponsor puts some in, & I believe strongly that the players have an ABSOLUTE RIGHT to do what they want. As to "what they want", well, thaht's another story altogether, & I fancy there will never be agreement on that!

So even though there will be no money added by the sponsor and all of the cash prizepool will be provided by the players they will not be allowed to deal? As i've said in a previous post if this assosiation is aimed at the recreational player then the difference in say a possible £2700 for 1st and £900 for 4th is huge, surely they should be able to decide how it gets paid out?

[Jon MW]

Do you hold a online freeroll for all members wanting and able to attend the event with the top 120 qualify.

Or maybe the bottom 120...

Just in case this were being considered.... I must voice my objection to it.

Both my wife and myself have joined and we both want to play... only one of us would be able to play any online qualifier.

I don't necessarily think that this is the way to go but if they did 4 qualifiers with 30 seats available in each it would address this problem. If they made it so that you could only enter one qualifier it would mean that this would reduce the field to a more manageable size and reduce the lottery aspect. If it was with a modified shootout format this would reduce the lottery aspect further and hopefully cut down the number of 'all in or bust' merchants qualifying for the main event.

The only other concerns with this are the strength of the link to one specific poker site (unless it was repaid on a very long term basis with continued support) and the fact that this wouldn't be a freeroll to qualify, but a freeroll to qualify for the right to pay registration. As such a lot of thought would have to be given to the mechanics of how this would work, as well as how an alternates list would be generated to take into account the fact that of the 120 people in top place, some of them are guaranteed to end up not paying for their seat (forgetting, not being able to afford it, not being able to get time off work etc.).

[BrumBilly]

Bizarre!

[Jon MW]

Bizarre!

Constructive?

[BrumBilly]

I'm just BAFFLED...sorry if I've offended.

[Jon MW]

No, scrutiny has meant I've thought about what I've written.

But this doesn't mean I might be immune to a huge logic bypass, if it doesn't make sense I could try and reason it out. But if it's really not that important I'm not offended.

[thediceman]

The only certain conclusion one can make it this stage is that whatever the APAT decides to do that some people is going to be unhappy.

The simply fact is the APAT will not suit everybody. As with any association it will have to clearly define it's position and after this people should then decide if they want to risk £5 or £10 to be a member. I'm sure the APAT will listen to all it's members but it will never be able to satisfy every members individual position. It appears some people are more interested in changing the APAt's original goals just so they can be part of the live jollies. The APAT has gained a considerable amount of sponsorship based on a proposal of creating a live tour for the amteur player. So what defines amateur???. I believe there is never going to be any universal agreement on what an amateur and what a professional player is and whilst it has been suggested it could be self policed I believe this is open to abuse. You just need to read some of the posts or go to any rookie night to see that players love to milk valuooooo.

So does the APAT amend it's intention that the tour is for recreactional/hobby players to allow more people to play. For starters the events are clearly going to be over subscribed so does it need to. Also if they do have how will this effect any future sponsorship they hope to attract considering it's been sold on a different basis. The irony could be that the very players demanding the tour is opened to all but the sponsored pro may result in the nice sponsorship prizes disappear. I wonder how many will be so keen to play in the events was the juicey prizes disappear.

Someone is going to be upset whatever is decided. For me I prefer to see the focus remain on the recreational/hobby players and keep the sponsorship even if this does upset one or two "face" players who I believe this association wasn't intended for in the first place.

[Jon MW]

The only certain conclusion one can make it this stage is that whatever the APAT decides to do that some people is going to be unhappy.

The simply fact is the APAT will not suit everybody. As with any association it will have to clearly define it's position and after this people should then decide if they want to risk £5 or £10 to be a member. I'm sure the APAT will listen to all it's members but it will never be able to satisfy every members individual position. It appears some people are more interested in changing the APAt's original goals just so they can be part of the live jollies. The APAT has gained a considerable amount of sponsorship based on a proposal of creating a live tour for the amteur player. So what defines amateur???. I believe there is never going to be any universal agreement on what an amateur and what a professional player is and whilst it has been suggested it could be self policed I believe this is open to abuse. You just need to read some of the posts or go to any rookie night to see that players love to milk valuooooo.

So does the APAT amend it's intention that the tour is for recreactional/hobby players to allow more people to play. For starters the events are clearly going to be over subscribed so does it need to. Also if they do have how will this effect any future sponsorship they hope to attract considering it's been sold on a different basis. The irony could be that the very players demanding the tour is opened to all but the sponsored pro may result in the nice sponsorship prizes disappear. I wonder how many will be so keen to play in the events was the juicey prizes disappear.

Someone is going to be upset whatever is decided. For me I prefer to see the focus remain on the recreational/hobby players and keep the sponsorship even if this does upset one or two "face" players who I believe this association wasn't intended for in the first place.

 

A very good summary.