Why is the APAT payout structure so top heavy ?

[RED-DOG]

I haven't posted on this thread yet (I don't think) but it seems to me that no one minds what peoples opinions are re the top-heavy prize structure. I would imagine that all opinions are welcomed and will be taken into consideration for future events.

What I do think is important, is the way in which those opinions are expressed.

No one can deny that the event was a resounding success, all it's objectives were achieved.

If you think you can make a suggestion that will improve future events, please, do so.

But please, don't do it in a way that suggests that the organisers didn't try, didn't care, or had some hidden agenda or ulterior motive unless you think that really was the case.

[M3boy]

But please, don't do it in a way that suggests that the organisers didn't try, didn't care, or had some hidden agenda or ulterior motive unless you think that really was the case.

??

Tom, surely if someone posted in this manner, then they do think that it was really the case?

[Teacake]

Personally I feel that many people like me were shocked and horrified when discovering the payout for the first APAT event.

Certainly I assumed that when Tikay became chairman of APA he brought all of the causes that he has been championing on this forum for the last couple of years(flatter payouts, player friendly blind-structures, etc.) to the table. So much so that I never even bothered to check them out.

I had, to be honest, assumed people would look at the wider picture, rather than focusing on the one thing which - maybe & arguably - was not to the taste of many, but there you go, nobody's been hurt.

As far as I can see there has only been one issue that has recieved ANY criticism, I think you would have settled for that before the event & should look at that as a positive rather a negative.

For a first event I think you've all done a fantastic job 

[Ironside]

Personally I feel that many people like me were shocked and horrified when discovering the payout for the first APAT event.

Certainly I assumed that when Tikay became chairman of APA he brought all of the causes that he has been championing on this forum for the last couple of years(flatter payouts, player friendly blind-structures, etc.) to the table. So much so that I never even bothered to check them out.

I had, to be honest, assumed people would look at the wider picture, rather than focusing on the one thing which - maybe & arguably - was not to the taste of many, but there you go, nobody's been hurt.

As far as I can see there has only been one issue that has recieved ANY criticism, I think you would have settled for that before the event & should look at that as a positive rather a negative.

For a first event I think you've all done a fantastic job 

i think there was 2 problems with APAt first was the payout structure (wasnt enough to make me not want to play) 2nd was there was 2 much noise espically on day 2 i certainly think singing should be banned as for old men creeping up on you and clashing together ashtrays i think that should result in a life time ban from all casinos worldwide

[Card_Shark]

I would like to withdraw all of my comments from this thread immediately and also appologise to those that have been offended by them.

I made the comment about "principles being compromised" aimed towards APAT, this comment was not directed towards any individuals. i jumped to a conclusion and i was wrong.

I have spoken to Tony since my last post and personally appoligised to him also.

Sorry !

Steve Read

 

[bobby1]

I would like to withdraw all of my comments from this thread immediately and also appologise to those that have been offended by them.

I made the comment about "principles being compromised" aimed towards APAT, this comment was not directed towards any individuals. i jumped to a conclusion and i was wrong.

I have spoken to Tony since my last post and personally appoligised to him also.

Sorry !

Steve Read


I have followed this thread with interest and have been a little surprised at the reaction of some of the posters, not by the views they have expressed but in the way they have been expressed. I am not a member of Apat but I feel that constructive criticism of any issues that have arisen from the first event are exactly what the organisers want.

Ralph's first post is a legitimate question and has been answered in full and more impotently it has been taken on board, so the thread has given the Apat team some invaluable feedback. I know the pressure that the organisers have felt in the build up to this event and this organisation will grow and grow given the support of its members and just as importantly the constructive support of this forum to the huge job our friends are undertaking.

I think Red is spot on, this is the perfect medium to express our opinion on these things but lets please remember that so much effort has gone into getting this far that we don't want to make those doing the hard work feel unhappy with their work. What they have achieved so far is a superb piece of work.


Thanks



 

[ifm]

I haven't posted on this thread yet (I don't think) but it seems to me that no one minds what peoples opinions are re the top-heavy prize structure. I would imagine that all opinions are welcomed and will be taken into consideration for future events.

What I do think is important, is the way in which those opinions are expressed.

No one can deny that the event was a resounding success, all it's objectives were achieved.

If you think you can make a suggestion that will improve future events, please, do so.

But please, don't do it in a way that suggests that the organisers didn't try, didn't care, or had some hidden agenda or ulterior motive unless you think that really was the case.

I find it odd that you haven't commented on this particular subject Red, it is after all your main beef regarding live poker.

[tikay]

I haven't posted on this thread yet (I don't think) but it seems to me that no one minds what peoples opinions are re the top-heavy prize structure. I would imagine that all opinions are welcomed and will be taken into consideration for future events.

What I do think is important, is the way in which those opinions are expressed.

No one can deny that the event was a resounding success, all it's objectives were achieved.

If you think you can make a suggestion that will improve future events, please, do so.

But please, don't do it in a way that suggests that the organisers didn't try, didn't care, or had some hidden agenda or ulterior motive unless you think that really was the case.

I find it odd that you haven't commented on this particular subject Red, it is after all your main beef regarding live poker.

Well I HOPE that's because Tom understands that.....

1) I remain firmly commmitted to flatter payout structures.

2) It was done this way for a specific reason, as outlined in Post 8 on Page 1 of this thread.

Bear in mind also that Tom is not qualified to play regular APAT Events, so this specific issue does not affect him.

But I'm sure Tom has his reasons!

Have a good weekend Ian.

[tikay]

I haven't posted on this thread yet (I don't think) but it seems to me that no one minds what peoples opinions are re the top-heavy prize structure. I would imagine that all opinions are welcomed and will be taken into consideration for future events.

What I do think is important, is the way in which those opinions are expressed.

No one can deny that the event was a resounding success, all it's objectives were achieved.

If you think you can make a suggestion that will improve future events, please, do so.

But please, don't do it in a way that suggests that the organisers didn't try, didn't care, or had some hidden agenda or ulterior motive unless you think that really was the case.

I find it odd that you haven't commented on this particular subject Red, it is after all your main beef regarding live poker.

He also has several other "live poker beefs" & we HAVE addressed them, (structures that don't change mid-comp for one!) so maybe he thinks that, on balance, we are heading in the right direction.

But I better shut up now - it's for Tom to answer, not me!

[ifm]

I wasn't trying to drag him into a debate he isn't comfortable being in, my appologies.
Member or not though, APAT are trying to make changes that eventually will effect everyone, members or not, this i think is an important point.

[tikay]

I wasn't trying to drag him into a debate he isn't comfortable being in, my appologies.
Member or not though, APAT are trying to make changes that eventually will effect everyone, members or not, this i think is an important point.

Thanks Ian. You are right - it IS important that we head down the right road. As I explained, we did it this way at this time for a specific reason. My OP on this thread explains the thinking.

Be assured, I remain 100% committed to flatter structures for regular Circuit Events.

[matt674]

I wasn't trying to drag him into a debate he isn't comfortable being in, my appologies.
Member or not though, APAT are trying to make changes that eventually will effect everyone, members or not, this i think is an important point.

Thanks Ian. You are right - it IS important that we head down the right road. As I explained, we did it this way at this time for a specific reason. My OP on this thread explains the thinking.

Be assured, I remain 100% committed to flatter structures for regular Circuit Events.

If you are behind a top heavy payout structure for the APAT and behind a flatter payout structure for regular circuit events will this not result in a conflict of interest when you take the ideals of the APA with you to the casinos and Gaming Council?

[RED-DOG]

I wasn't trying to drag him into a debate he isn't comfortable being in, my appologies.
Member or not though, APAT are trying to make changes that eventually will effect everyone, members or not, this i think is an important point.

As it happens, I do think the prize structure was too top heavy, but I realise that APAT is in it's infancy, it's a baby.

When a baby takes it's first few faltering steps, you don't give it a push to see if it will fall over. You don't put obstacles in it's way just to trip it up. and you don't criticise it for not walking perfectly straight and upright.

What you do, is praise it for making the effort, applaud what it has achieved, and do your best to encourage it and give it confidence.

Of course, as it grows and becomes stronger, passing through adolescence into adulthood, we may well need to sit it down and give it a good talking to. For the the moment, let's just scoop it up in our arms and give it a cuddle.

[tikay]

I wasn't trying to drag him into a debate he isn't comfortable being in, my appologies.
Member or not though, APAT are trying to make changes that eventually will effect everyone, members or not, this i think is an important point.

Thanks Ian. You are right - it IS important that we head down the right road. As I explained, we did it this way at this time for a specific reason. My OP on this thread explains the thinking.

Be assured, I remain 100% committed to flatter structures for regular Circuit Events.

If you are behind a top heavy payout structure for the APAT and behind a flatter payout structure for regular circuit events will this not result in a conflict of interest when you take the ideals of the APA with you to the casinos and Gaming Council?

No! As I have stated, it was done this way, this time, for a specific reason. I remain committed (as I have Posted on numerous occasions on APAT threads) to "fairer" (= flatter in my view, but not in everyone's view) payout structures for circuit Events. I also stated that for our Pro-Am Series, we would go for a flatter structure.

We tried something out - if it was wrong, we'll change it. Better to have tried & failed, in my view, though that does not seem to be a view shared by too many. If we don't try & change things, they will stay as they are, & we will be back to where we have been for years - everyone moaning about things, & nobody doing anything about it, & I prefer "do" to "moan".

Have a good weekend Mr Monkey.

[matt674]

I wasn't trying to drag him into a debate he isn't comfortable being in, my appologies.
Member or not though, APAT are trying to make changes that eventually will effect everyone, members or not, this i think is an important point.

Thanks Ian. You are right - it IS important that we head down the right road. As I explained, we did it this way at this time for a specific reason. My OP on this thread explains the thinking.

Be assured, I remain 100% committed to flatter structures for regular Circuit Events.

If you are behind a top heavy payout structure for the APAT and behind a flatter payout structure for regular circuit events will this not result in a conflict of interest when you take the ideals of the APA with you to the casinos and Gaming Council?

No! As I have stated, it was done this way, this time, for a specific reason. I remain committed (as I have Posted on numerous occasions on APAT threads) to "fairer" (= flatter in my view, but not in everyone's view) payout structures for circuit Events. I also stated that for our Pro-Am Series, we would go for a flatter structure.

We tried something out - if it was wrong, we'll change it. Better to have tried & failed, in my view, though that does not seem to be a view shared by too many. If we don't try & change things, they will stay as they are, & we will be back to where we have been for years - everyone moaning about things, & nobody doing anything about it, & I prefer "do" to "moan".

Have a good weekend Mr Monkey.

Yes squire i did read the post on page one, i wasn't trying to put you on the spot in choosing either/or. 

hope you have a good one too