Launch of the Amateur Poker Association & Tour (APAT)

[BrumBilly]

Cheers Jon,

We'll agree to differ on a few things and leave it at that. My brain hurts the more I read this thread so gonna avoid it till the dust settles.

Wil.

[tikay]

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.

Hi Rio,

No, we wll not go this specific route, Rio.

It was a suggestion by a blonde, originally "tongue-in-cheek", then further developd by him. I don't believe a qualification system that rewarded the losers is really quite in the spirit of things! And if the first 120 out were the "winners", we'd see some pretty interesting play.....! We were, I hasten to add, grateful for the suggestion, however.

I am delighted that you & Mrs Rodent have joined.

[tikay]

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?

No, the Sponsor is not adding money, but they are adding - considerably - via the EPT/WPT/WSOP Seats.

Everyone has the right to decide if they want to deal or not, that's always been my stance, as you correctly remind us. This is a different concept, & we have made potential Members aware of this facet of APAT Live Events BEFORE they joined. So they have the choice, & if it makes them uncomfortable, they will decide that APAT is not for them.

It took Des a considerable amount of time to "sell" this Policy to me, but eventually, in the context of APAT, I clicked on to the concept.

We foresee the Finalists really "going for it", all the way, down to the wire, playing proper Poker (hopefully the Structure will encourage this), & an outright winner. The majority of players will never have played in a Casino before, & as such, I think they will find the Final a truly memorable experience.

Let's hope that the Recreational Monkeys support the logic.

You back from Vegas?

[AlrightJack]

You would still get a competitive finish even if they dealt on the prize pool, as they would still be playing on for a much bigger prize, in the shape of the sponsors added seat to the winner.

At the recent Poker 6 event in Bolton there was considerable added prize money put in by the sponsors (almost £30k) yet we did not prevent players from dealing. We simply said that they must leave some money left over after they have dealt so as to ensure it remained competitive until the end.

While it is entirely APAT's choice to decide on whether they will allow deals or not, it seems a step to far to ban them outright. A ballot of signed up members would seem a fair way to do it. After all, it is a players association so surely it should be the member players, not those who run the association who have the final say on this sort of matter.

[Karabiner]

I have been longing for a player's association to be formed and to be a part of it, but I am still not sure whether I would be comfortable playing in these events, although I would be delighted to play in a deepstacked £75 freezeout with a good structure and house dealers amongst like-minded folk whether there were added incentives or not.These are exactly the kind of tournies that I'm certain will be on offer at DtD.

I would hate to actually win only to hear discontented mutterings about my eligibility.This is why I have not signed up. Although Tikay has said that I would be welcome, judging from many of the responses on this thread it seems that many would consider me to be a "face" and therefore an unwelcome interloper.

[Jon MW]

You would still get a competitive finish even if they dealt on the prize pool, as they would still be playing on for a much bigger prize, in the shape of the sponsors added seat to the winner.

At the recent Poker 6 event in Bolton there was considerable added prize money put in by the sponsors (almost £30k) yet we did not prevent players from dealing. We simply said that they must leave some money left over after they have dealt so as to ensure it remained competitive until the end.

While it is entirely APAT's choice to decide on whether they will allow deals or not, it seems a step to far to ban them outright. A ballot of signed up members would seem a fair way to do it. After all, it is a players association so surely it should be the member players, not those who run the association who have the final say on this sort of matter.

I agree with the 'no deals' policy to promote the competitiveness but I would expect it to be something that could be voted on by the members in the future.

Also, wouldn't a flatter structure make the players at the final table more likely to, 'go for it'? If a short stacked player knows that the next step up offers a big jump in prize money doesn't this encourage them to just hang around doing nothing hoping that somebody else gets knocked out? If they knew that to get a big jump in prize money they would have to avoid elimination for another 2 or 3 places wouldn't they be more likely to try and get involved and thus make more exciting play?

[AlrightJack]

With regard to deals, what I favour is for a system that enables them to be discussed as openly and conducted as fairly as possible. They should be managed by the cardroom supervisor/tournament director. He or she would

- inform each player what their chips would be worth if it were a chip count situation
- oversee the discussion
- ensure players do not get bullied into unfair/bad deals
- ensure that any deal made leaves some prize money left over to be played for competitively
- ensure that any added prize/seat supplied by a sponsor is left over to be played for competitvely
- redistribute prize pool payout structure according to the agreed deal and payout on the dealt amounts

[Indestructable]

Please don't let this thread turn in to a deal or no deal thread.
Oh go on then, I say that APAT are right and no deals is the way to go. I've said it before and will say it again, No Deals.

[AlrightJack]

Please don't let this thread turn in to a deal or no deal thread.
Oh go on then, I say that APAT are right and no deals is the way to go. I've said it before and will say it again, No Deals.

But you're not supplying any reasoning, you're just saying 'no deals'. I thought I was at least being helpful by providing reasoning and a solution to what I see are the main problems with deals - ensuring fairness and a competitive finish.

The 'Just Say No' approach didn't work for Grange Hill and it would be a farce if that were a player organisation's stance as well. Such policies should not be dictated to the members.

Tikay, it worried me that you had to be 'sold' such policies of the APAT by the founder. Who decides what is best for the members? The members themselves or the King of the Hill? Such issues should never be presented to the members as a fait accomplit.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as negative about this whole venture, but the way I see it, it is just that - a venture - and I feel that issues which need to be addressed for the good of the game are being adopted as a side issue rather than as central to the reason the whole thing was set up.

Des has not responded to my chicken and egg comment although Tikay has. Only Des can answer this question and I think it is important for potential members not to simply say ' hey lets join there's loads of added sponsor value' but to ask what the motives behind it are. I'm afraid I would have very little time for a players organisation that is supposed to bring change for the good of the game if it was set up as an afterthought in order to support and provide an excuse for a tour.

By all means set up a tour with added value, but it should be done completely separately from a players organisation that is supposed to lobby members views, improve various aspects of how poker is run and stick up for poker players rights. IMO the two do not sit well together.

Tikay says

"Everyone has the right to decide if they want to deal or not, that's always been my stance, as you correctly remind us. This is a different concept, & we have made potential Members aware of this facet of APAT Live Events BEFORE they joined. So they have the choice, & if it makes them uncomfortable, they will decide that APAT is not for them."

I guess this just means that APAT is not for me, which is a shame because at the risk of repeating myself, what is the point of a players organisation that prescribes how these sort of core issues will be dealt with rather than giving members the right to choose for themselves?

[matt674]

No, the Sponsor is not adding money, but they are adding - considerably - via the EPT/WPT/WSOP Seats.

Everyone has the right to decide if they want to deal or not, that's always been my stance, as you correctly remind us. This is a different concept, & we have made potential Members aware of this facet of APAT Live Events BEFORE they joined. So they have the choice, & if it makes them uncomfortable, they will decide that APAT is not for them.

It took Des a considerable amount of time to "sell" this Policy to me, but eventually, in the context of APAT, I clicked on to the concept.

We foresee the Finalists really "going for it", all the way, down to the wire, playing proper Poker (hopefully the Structure will encourage this), & an outright winner. The majority of players will never have played in a Casino before, & as such, I think they will find the Final a truly memorable experience.

Let's hope that the Recreational Monkeys support the logic.

You back from Vegas?

Not back from Vegas yet unfortunately - I'm stuck here til Thursday.

I'm sure given the fact that there is a EPT seat package up for grabs to the winner then you will see the finalist "going for it" - regardless of whether they strike a deal over the cash. To be honest i would prefer to play a tournemant down to a finish anyway and not do a deal myself over the cash but i still would like to play with the option of being able to deal should i feel like it. This is the money of myself and my fellow competitors still in the tournament - it should be up to us to decide how we want to split it.

I have told my jungle chums about the APAT but to be honest this monkey is still undecided as to whether to join. I feel as though i am in the same boat as Karabiner although i believe myself to be eligible to play others may question my eligibility. I also agree with a few of the points other people make within the thread, the APAT hopes to be the voice of the amateur player - but to join you must abide by APAT's rules and you have no say in changing them - that hardly seems right?

I think for now i will stick to viewing APAT's progress in deciding who is eligible and who isnt and how they are going to change poker for the better within the UK before i decide i am going to hand over my subscription.

You say it took Des a considerable amount of time to be able to "sell" this policy to you - i am in the same banana boat, its going to take a while for him to be able to sell it to me too.......

[The Nomad]

Read this thread in one go

[Alex B]

With regard to deals, what I favour is for a system that enables them to be discussed as openly and conducted as fairly as possible. They should be managed by the cardroom supervisor/tournament director. He or she would

- inform each player what their chips would be worth if it were a chip count situation
- oversee the discussion
- ensure players do not get bullied into unfair/bad deals
- ensure that any deal made leaves some prize money left over to be played for competitively
- ensure that any added prize/seat supplied by a sponsor is left over to be played for competitvely
- redistribute prize pool payout structure according to the agreed deal and payout on the dealt amounts

The 1st point is a terrible suggestion, and the 3rd needs clarifying.

Deals are part of the game; informing players of their equity and ensuring they don't get bad deals is the same as warning them their blinds are being stolen or that they are being bluffed too often. One player to a hand.

Here is an updated list:
- Ensure everyone knows the total number of chips in play and the prize distribution
- Oversee the discussion
- Ensure players do not get bullied into taking a deal they don't want.
- Ensure that any deal made leaves some prize money left over to be played for competitively
- Ensure that any added prize/seat supplied by a sponsor is left over to be played for competitvely
- Redistribute prize pool payout structure according to the agreed deal and payout on the dealt amounts

One more note on the Pro-Am definitions discussion
I really think that the players concerned about "pro's" making fields tougher should relax. Read their blogs, read Swimming with the Devilfish and anything else you can get your hands on. Many of these sponsored "pro's" aren't even covering their buy-ins, and would be broke if it weren't for the sponsor. They ones that are talented are not going to play a £75 tournament.

These days there are 'amateurs' who play far, far, better than nearly all of the old-school pro's. There is a wealth of information available and 100,000s of hands' experience to be gained on the internet by educated people. And many of these guys are just not going to fit any definition of "Pro" you can come up with, probably because they stand to make more money by staying in education and then business, than by stopping to play poker.

What I think some of the posters are really looking for is a an Untalented Players Poker Association Tour, and its certainly going to be more difficult to define the entry requirments for that.

2 Recommendations

1. Allow any sponsored Pro that wants to play a £75 game to play, they'll probably make the field easier while increasing publicity.

most importantly:

2. Hold the events on the same dates as added-value festival events.
 

[dik9]

2. Hold the events on the same dates as added-value festival events.
 

Ladies and Gentleman, we have a winner!!!

[TightEnd]

The first event clashes with the EPT at the Vic.


Do I get the chicken dinner for being the winner, winner?

[dik9]

You indeed win the platter, served on a bed of microwavable plastic, stones for peas and a rock for the Yorkshire Pud. The scold after ripping the celephane off too quick.
Ahhh them was the days