Launch of the Amateur Poker Association & Tour (APAT)

[TightEnd]

The thing is what you are looking to do will affect non members too!!
As for the blind issue, if people cannot get this simple thing changed now what hope is there for other things?

Yes it will affect non-members if we succeed. Hopefully they will agree that it is for the better too.

What you are missing is that we do not necessarily want to change this "simple thing"...there are arguments for and against. We have changed a lot of things in two weeks in repsonse to listening to feedback. If we thought it was an open and shut case that the blind strucutre was wrong we would have changed it

It does not imply that we are incapable of changing other things. However I expect you realise that there is not a causal link between the blinds issue and any other issue.

[thediceman]

I wasn't suggesting the guy who won the first online comp was a professional and at no point stated only novices should play. What I did do is ask could some more family names enter as they can can to be in a similar position as the first online winner. The given classification of who does and does not qualify has no measurable defining point. This is understandable as I don't think it is possible to have a blanket defination and agree entry should largely at the discreation of the APAT. I have no problems with this and accept that they can run there association as they wish to clarify.

All I have done is to suggest some names and asked if they also qualify for the amatuer stream of the APAT as they are in a similar position as the first online winner. I understand Tony Bloom merely plays the occassional game and has a job outside of poker. I just think it might be kind of funny if Tony Bloom (former Aussie millionaire champion) was to win the title of amateur champion.

OK, let's deal with Tony Bloom, Dave Colclough, etc, whose eligibiity has been hypothesised.

No, they will not be allowed to play, they are not the sort of player we are seeking. Nor, more to the point, would they wish to. It's not designed for them, & they are bright enough to know that. They CAN join the Association though, & I expect some of them will. It's in their interest to help form a "Lobbying Body" to improve everyon'e lot in Tournament Poker, & we are forming that. If we go ahead with the Pro-Am series, then I believe they WOULD be interested.

There is much negative feedback, that's OK. But we will press on, & we will get the job done, improvements will happen, for all of us. If folks want to ask about details, that's cool too.

For me, I know I am doing the right thing, for the right reasons.

I fully agree that the players I mentioned are not likely to seek to be involved and that they are bright enough to know it's not designed for them but I just used their names as extreme examples. Sadly not all poker players are so honest. I recall seeing some pro poker players playing at £10 rookie nights.  

[Heid]

I reckon you mods should print the last post from IFM out and frame it

[tikay]

Speaking as a recreational player that is a typical APAT member IMO it is far more important to get the structure correct from the outset, than to have the even finish at "civilised hours" realistically adding the level or swapping the 500 - 1000 for the 800 - 1600 is not going to increase the time by a unreasonable amount. If you are trying to set a standard, that standard IMO should be in place from Event 1, not run with it and change it later.


(this isn't James posting on my account BTW lol)

Hi Jane - yes, I KNOW it's you & not James.....! It's a question of "style".....

The civilised starting & finishing times are VERY important to us, & our Membership has commented muchly on this already, that's what they want, so far anyway.

If we want to change the Blind Structure pre Event # 1, we CAN & we will, but our Members seem happy with it so far.

I agree, it would be better to get it right first time, but it rarely works out that way in real life, & we are not afraid to change things in the light of experience. Not in Mid-Comp, though, EVER..... OK, if we change things for Event # 2, the wise guys will give it the "I told you so", but that's OK. It's a long road we are on, & it will take a goodly while to get things just so. But at least we have started the journey. I kinda get the feeling that the knockers will be on our backs forever, & even more so if we get the job done. Life's like that.

[Sheriff Fatman]

What you are missing is that we do not necessarily want to change this "simple thing"...there are arguments for and against. We have changed a lot of things in two weeks in repsonse to listening to feedback. If we thought it was an open and shut case that the blind strucutre was wrong we would have changed it

Can I ask what you believe the merits of the existing structure are over replacing the 500/1000 level with an 800/1600 level then?

As far as I can see it, doing this doesn't extend the event in any way by adding in an extra level, but it does prevent a huge jump in blinds that is out of proportion with the remainder of the structure.

I'm not trying to be awkward here but I agree with the earlier comments made on the structure.  I just can't see how this is not an 'open and shut' case of common sense applying.

Sheriff

[tikay]

What you are missing is that we do not necessarily want to change this "simple thing"...there are arguments for and against. We have changed a lot of things in two weeks in repsonse to listening to feedback. If we thought it was an open and shut case that the blind strucutre was wrong we would have changed it

Can I ask what you believe the merits of the existing structure are over replacing the 500/1000 level with an 800/1600 level then?

As far as I can see it, doing this doesn't extend the event in any way by adding in an extra level, but it does prevent a huge jump in blinds that is out of proportion with the remainder of the structure.

I'm not trying to be awkward here but I agree with the earlier comments made on the structure.  I just can't see how this is not an 'open and shut' case of common sense applying.

Sheriff

Sheriff, we will take another look at it.

Thanks.

[TightEnd]

What he said. thanks

[tikay]

In that case i give up.
The thing is what you are looking to do will affect non members too!!
As for the blind issue, if people cannot get this simple thing changed now what hope is there for other things?
Gotta be honest i'm fed up with this entire subject, you think i'm being deliberately obtuse and the more times i ask the same few questions the more i begin to agree!

Tighty has answered this ifm, but on a wider note, players do moan & groan - justifiably - that things need changing. We are trying to do just that, & others have the right - have ALWAYS had the right - to do something about it. But they did not. They still can, there is nothing to stop you or anyone else doing it solo, or with another collective. But I'm sad you have decided to give up on APAT, you are exactly the sort of person who can help affect change, & I was looking forward to working with you.

Give up? Give up? Whats "give up"? Come on fella, lets get this job done.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Sheriff, we will take another look at it.

Thanks.

Can't ask for more than that.

Appreciated!

Sheriff

[ifm]

In that case i give up.
The thing is what you are looking to do will affect non members too!!
As for the blind issue, if people cannot get this simple thing changed now what hope is there for other things?
Gotta be honest i'm fed up with this entire subject, you think i'm being deliberately obtuse and the more times i ask the same few questions the more i begin to agree!

Tighty has answered this ifm, but on a wider note, players do moan & groan - justifiably - that things need changing. We are trying to do just that, & others have the right - have ALWAYS had the right - to do something about it. But they did not. They still can, there is nothing to stop you or anyone else doing it solo, or with another collective. But I'm sad you have decided to give up on APAT, you are exactly the sort of person who can help affect change, & I was looking forward to working with you.

Give up? Give up? Whats "give up"? Come on fella, lets get this job done.

I meant given up on trying to get an answer for that question but i have decided to rephrase it

Can you approach the Gaming board directly as a representative body, is there a channel of communication available?
Ditto for Gala and Grosvenor.

[Karabiner]

What you are missing is that we do not necessarily want to change this "simple thing"...there are arguments for and against. We have changed a lot of things in two weeks in repsonse to listening to feedback. If we thought it was an open and shut case that the blind strucutre was wrong we would have changed it

Can I ask what you believe the merits of the existing structure are over replacing the 500/1000 level with an 800/1600 level then?

As far as I can see it, doing this doesn't extend the event in any way by adding in an extra level, but it does prevent a huge jump in blinds that is out of proportion with the remainder of the structure.

I'm not trying to be awkward here but I agree with the earlier comments made on the structure.  I just can't see how this is not an 'open and shut' case of common sense applying.

Sheriff

Would you be happy with this structure in a £1500 main event ?

If the answer to this question is "no" then you need to change it imo, as the object is to give players
the opportunity to play similar events for a smaller buyin.

[londonpokergirl]

What you are missing is that we do not necessarily want to change this "simple thing"...there are arguments for and against. We have changed a lot of things in two weeks in repsonse to listening to feedback. If we thought it was an open and shut case that the blind strucutre was wrong we would have changed it

Can I ask what you believe the merits of the existing structure are over replacing the 500/1000 level with an 800/1600 level then?

As far as I can see it, doing this doesn't extend the event in any way by adding in an extra level, but it does prevent a huge jump in blinds that is out of proportion with the remainder of the structure.

I'm not trying to be awkward here but I agree with the earlier comments made on the structure.  I just can't see how this is not an 'open and shut' case of common sense applying.

Sheriff

Hi Curtis

The 500/1000 level was brought in as a comfort blanket.  Its fair to say that by the time this level comes into play our amateur players should have approx 40k in chips

The next level 600/1200 is a small jump and won't make any difference to players unless they are short stacked and then it may hurt

Next day the players come back refreshed after a great nights sleep to blinds of 1000/2000
bearing in mind that they have played 7 hours of poker at this point before the blinds start to increase.   Its not like some tournaments where they take out levels so it will finish by 5am
because the casino is closing.   We are not extending the event by adding in an extra level, just allowing more play in the early stages where its needed.

You all know the structure now.  10000 chips and 40min clock.  See you there!

[tikay]

In that case i give up.
The thing is what you are looking to do will affect non members too!!
As for the blind issue, if people cannot get this simple thing changed now what hope is there for other things?
Gotta be honest i'm fed up with this entire subject, you think i'm being deliberately obtuse and the more times i ask the same few questions the more i begin to agree!

Tighty has answered this ifm, but on a wider note, players do moan & groan - justifiably - that things need changing. We are trying to do just that, & others have the right - have ALWAYS had the right - to do something about it. But they did not. They still can, there is nothing to stop you or anyone else doing it solo, or with another collective. But I'm sad you have decided to give up on APAT, you are exactly the sort of person who can help affect change, & I was looking forward to working with you.

Give up? Give up? Whats "give up"? Come on fella, lets get this job done.

I meant given up on trying to get an answer for that question but i have decided to rephrase it

Can you approach the Gaming board directly as a representative body, is there a channel of communication available?
Ditto for Gala and Grosvenor.

That's a relief, the thought of this thread without your probing questions was too much for me to contemplate......

Can we approach the GC directly? In due course, yes, but right now, I think it would be wrong, as we have no track record yet. So in the short term, we inform our Venues that we need them to take our proposals forward for us, & the negotiation proceeds that way. Further down the line, we will open direct channels with the GC if we can.

Gala & Grosvenor? We shall see. Anyone who wishes to host an APAT Event will need to "want us", & if they want us, then we will seek, in return, the right to use our own Rules, & work with them to approach the GC to sek the approval for the modifications. We will NOT use other peoples existing Rules. Does this answer your question?

[Dingdell]

I almost think that there is too much consultation on this. We are very lucky that this amount of consultation is available on this forum, but this work in answering all these queries individually must be running Tikay and Tighty ragged.

There is never going to be a time when everyone is satisfied, if APAT offered everyone their buy in back if they didn't finish in the money there would be someone moaning that it was sent in by cheque and not given in cash on the night!  


APAT is a great idea, will be great, lets see how it runs on the day (no pressure!) and make comments afterwards if we think there could be any improvements. We all know that there will not be any changes until after the first live tourney so why not wait and see?

As for Tighty and Tikay on this thread - I salute you - as Tighty said as he nudged with awake this morning "It's been very hard".  

[ifm]

 Its fair to say that by the time this level comes into play our amateur players should have approx 40k in chips

The shortstacks won't, just simply email the members and ask them for a concensus.