Why is the APAT payout structure so top heavy ?

[Karabiner]

The point is that APAT and APA are running side by side.

Personally I am more interested in APA who pledge to set standards in European and especially UK cardrooms.

[FlyingPig]

I suppose there lies the difference. I just wanted to play poker with like minded people and with the chance of winning a excellent prize and title.

As Trevor said earlier ( I think its Trevor) 'I would do the same again if the prize was a stick of chewing gum' -  although i prefer Lolipops....

I am certainly for the top heavy structure... Gives an amateur the chance of winning a prize that is really worth winning.

I bet Daniel still hasnt come down from the ceiling..

[Teacake]

I'm firmly in the flatter structure camp & Flushies proposal looks fine to me.

How can anyone justify such a top heavy structure when a guy who busts out 4th gets the same as the fella in 9th 4 & a half hours later & misses his flight in the process thus having to fork out more dosh to get home.

I also feel as a member I am entitled to my opinion on this board without fear of  being accused of criticising those involved. Thats more likely to make me not renew than a difference of opinion on the payout structure.

For all those who played and enjoyed the event, great, it sounds like a resounding success but it doesn't mean the next one can't be better with a little tinkering 

[ifm]

Tighty, on another issue - with regards to the "ballot" that took place

I would of thought it correct to also email those people who DID NOT get into the event.

Just a comment, not ment in a "gripe" at all.

I dont envy you in your role!

I would like to know who was in the draw and where and when it happened, who was the independant chap etc.
Not because i think it was rigged but because i think it should have been made public.

Hi Ian,

I had cornflakes for my breakfast!  just in case you wanted to know!

I'm sorry, but we cannot run a business by a committe of several thousand posters, 99% of whom are non members, on several forums across the UK.  It's not going to happen because it would cripple our ability to make decisions and it's just not necessary.  You will have to trust us on the functional everyday stuff and utilise your member vote on the more important policy matters.  But no, we will not be publishing our entire member database.   Are you trying to set up the ATAP or something?

Please bear in mind that APAT is under two months old.  In that time we have proved ourselves able to bring some major sponsors and value to the table and run a very good event.  We have sent and responded to thousands of emails and forum posts.  And, perhaps surprisingly to some, we have not absconded with the membership fees.

In starting, we had to put certain principles in place prior to recruiting our first member.  Feedback and thought is required before implementing sweeping change to those principles.  We are open minded but aware the membership might allow us to change things once.  They are unlikely to be forgiving if we continue to tinker and change and morph into the very establishments that we are trying to improve upon.

Fair?

Cheers,

Des.

You don't think it's relevant to let the people in the draw know they were actually in the draw??

You published a list of 195 members already and i assume a list approaching 400 for the next one.......
As i said to you at Walsall i am asking questions of a body that is trying to represent me, i think i have that right?, i am not against it, i'm a member!!!!!!!
Flippancy does not help anyone i'm afraid.................................................

[DesD]

Tighty, on another issue - with regards to the "ballot" that took place

I would of thought it correct to also email those people who DID NOT get into the event.

Just a comment, not ment in a "gripe" at all.

I dont envy you in your role!

I would like to know who was in the draw and where and when it happened, who was the independant chap etc.
Not because i think it was rigged but because i think it should have been made public.

Hi Ian,

I had cornflakes for my breakfast!  just in case you wanted to know!

I'm sorry, but we cannot run a business by a committe of several thousand posters, 99% of whom are non members, on several forums across the UK.  It's not going to happen because it would cripple our ability to make decisions and it's just not necessary.  You will have to trust us on the functional everyday stuff and utilise your member vote on the more important policy matters.  But no, we will not be publishing our entire member database.   Are you trying to set up the ATAP or something?

Please bear in mind that APAT is under two months old.  In that time we have proved ourselves able to bring some major sponsors and value to the table and run a very good event.  We have sent and responded to thousands of emails and forum posts.  And, perhaps surprisingly to some, we have not absconded with the membership fees.

In starting, we had to put certain principles in place prior to recruiting our first member.  Feedback and thought is required before implementing sweeping change to those principles.  We are open minded but aware the membership might allow us to change things once.  They are unlikely to be forgiving if we continue to tinker and change and morph into the very establishments that we are trying to improve upon.

Fair?

Cheers,

Des.

You don't think it's relevant to let the people in the draw know they were actually in the draw??

You published a list of 195 members already and i assume a list approaching 400 for the next one.......
As i said to you at Walsall i am asking questions of a body that is trying to represent me, i think i have that right?, i am not against it, i'm a member!!!!!!!
Flippancy does not help anyone i'm afraid.................................................

Hi Ian,

All players who had signed up for membership in line with the process were in the draw.  That was stated previously.  The days of tournament entry by ballot are behind us, so we will not need to publish player lists in future.

Flippant, me?  I didn't know you were such a sensitive soul!

Regards,

Des.

[Jon MW]

flushy thanks for your constructive post on the structure even if the banter was miss read,

richard and tony have both said they didnt hear any complaints about the payouts this is correct

however they did hear me bring up the subject of it being top heavy and thatit needed to be flatterend for future events

just to allow people to cover costs (espically for the euriopean event)

i for one liked the fact it was a top heavy payout as allthough i am still new to poker

i did think that amongst the final 9 i was amongst the most comfotaable in the enviroment.

i LOVED the flat bottom where 9-4 got the same payment it encouraged poker

very similiar to 2 tables out in the vic when 18-10 get the same money people play to get chips

as if they bust outnext or in 2 hours time they are getting the same money

so i would like to see a payout simliar to a normal fessie where each seat gets a ladder climb

as people are then waiting for people to bust allowing the rich to keep getting richer

so my view is less top heavy so that the finalists are not out of pocket for the weekend

but keep it flat at the bottom to encourage people to play

As much as it pains me to say so - I agree with Ironside.

The flat payout for the bottom places to encourage more play, but less of a gap at the top with the difference redistributed to boost the lower places seems like a subtle but good variation.

But saying that, I don't think it's a major problem and something which can easily wait until the APAT membership can be consulted properly. I would like it if the payout was changed but I don't think it needs to until the second season.

I haven't got much to compare the tournament with, but I felt it went excellently - the structure and the organisation were second to none, if the APA Tour continues in this vein with only minor tinkering in future then I see it only ever being an undisputed success.

[ifm]

Hi Ian,

All players who had signed up for membership in line with the process were in the draw.  That was stated previously. 

Yes i know that is what was said, if you feel that is good enough then it's good enough.

I'm not at all sensitive or sarcastic as it happens, see you in Jockland!

[DesD]

Hi Ian,

All players who had signed up for membership in line with the process were in the draw.  That was stated previously. 

Yes i know that is what was said, if you feel that is good enough then it's good enough.

I'm not at all sensitive or sarcastic as it happens, see you in Jockland!

Great news....I enjoyed having a laugh with you at BB3 and it will be great to catch up in Scotland.

Cheers,

Des.

[FlyingPig]

I'm firmly in the flatter structure camp & Flushies proposal looks fine to me.

How can anyone justify such a top heavy structure when a guy who busts out 4th gets the same as the fella in 9th 4 & a half hours later & misses his flight in the process thus having to fork out more dosh to get home.

This is not strictly true. The person who finished 4th got more than the person who finished 9th. 4th place got a lot more ranking points in the leaderboard. and that prize for the winner of the leaderboard is not to be sniffed at.

I hope with all the sniping and griping thats going on the team at the APAT do not get despondant and continue to remain upbeat and do a great job.

[tikay]

I'm firmly in the flatter structure camp & Flushies proposal looks fine to me.

How can anyone justify such a top heavy structure when a guy who busts out 4th gets the same as the fella in 9th 4 & a half hours later & misses his flight in the process thus having to fork out more dosh to get home.

This is not strictly true. The person who finished 4th got more than the person who finished 9th. 4th place got a lot more ranking points in the leaderboard. and that prize for the winner of the leaderboard is not to be sniffed at.

I hope with all the sniping and griping thats going on the team at the APAT do not get despondant and continue to remain upbeat and do a great job.

Despondent? No way! And the vast majority of the feedback is great stuff. Yes, there's been a bit of mischievous sniping from one or two, has been since we launched, but overall, 95% of it has been superb. I am offline much of today, as I was yesterday (I have to work these days!) so will catch up on this thread later, or tomorrow, but.....

I really need everyone on this thread to try & see that it's just NOT as easy as one might think. Everyone (almost) has a view at one extreme or the other - as they are entitled to - but we have to accept that others have views too, & they - & you - are all entitled to their views.

This thread demonstrates it beautifully. Players who think Event 1 was perfect. Others who think it was just nonsense. THAT'S the problem. Doing what's right by everyone. Doing whats right by the recreational players (which, I must say, I think we did), & recognizing that one size does not fit all.

Is the answer somewhere between the 2 views? No, not necessarily, though in practice, it will be, but really, we should travel one road or nother, in my opinion.

It's the need to explain the concept that has been so awkward. Everyone at Brum last weekend soon realised what the concept was. They had a fun weekend - as I had pledged they would. Those that were not present - in some cases, as seats were not available - they form, at present, the view that we got it wrong. Who's to know who is right or wrong. It is NOT that simple!

I have said - time & time again, & repeated it since the weekend - we ARE open to changing the payout structure, if the Members think we need to. But read this thread, with an open mind, & you'll see that it just ain't a simple solution, because the range of views is so wide. Victory won't go to he who shouts loudest, or gives the smart-arse replies, it will be achieved by working our way there bit by bit, by sheer tenacity & hard work. Now, let's see if we can move this forward.

All the above applies to the Live Events, designed for a certain type of player. That, relatively - was the easy bit....! But now we have to look at wider issues in Tournament Poker. The "A" part of APAT, if you like. Now it WILL start to be "interesting"......

Have a good day. I'm off to The Broadway, working again (all "work", eh?) overnight. Then, tomorrow, as a treat & sort of day off, I'm off to The Sportsman in London for the £500 freeze. Straight home after that, on Friday morning early-wurly, then back to London on Saturday for the Sportsman Main Event. Prob stay down there, as I'm doing Poker Night Live on Sunday - the last edition from the current studio, I think. So bear with me if I'm not Online as much as I need to be to deal with issues during the next few days. Thanks.

[DesD]

I'm firmly in the flatter structure camp & Flushies proposal looks fine to me.

How can anyone justify such a top heavy structure when a guy who busts out 4th gets the same as the fella in 9th 4 & a half hours later & misses his flight in the process thus having to fork out more dosh to get home.

This is not strictly true. The person who finished 4th got more than the person who finished 9th. 4th place got a lot more ranking points in the leaderboard. and that prize for the winner of the leaderboard is not to be sniffed at.

I hope with all the sniping and griping thats going on the team at the APAT do not get despondant and continue to remain upbeat and do a great job.

Can I just state that I view 99% of all posts on APAT as good healthy feedback and debate. It's pretty easy to spot the (very) occasional snide remark and we are all big enough to deal with those.

Flushy took a bit of stick above.  He could maybe work on his communications skills a bit from from time to time but I don't doubt that he wants to see APAT succeed and I for one would be sorry to see him stop posting on the subject.  And no, I'm not brown nosing him.  That is what I genuinely think.

Des.

[DesD]

I'm firmly in the flatter structure camp & Flushies proposal looks fine to me.

How can anyone justify such a top heavy structure when a guy who busts out 4th gets the same as the fella in 9th 4 & a half hours later & misses his flight in the process thus having to fork out more dosh to get home.

This is not strictly true. The person who finished 4th got more than the person who finished 9th. 4th place got a lot more ranking points in the leaderboard. and that prize for the winner of the leaderboard is not to be sniffed at.

I hope with all the sniping and griping thats going on the team at the APAT do not get despondant and continue to remain upbeat and do a great job.

Despondent? No way! And the vast majority of the feedback is great stuff. Yes, there's been a bit of mischievous sniping from one or two, has been since we launched, but overall, 95% of it has been superb. I am offline much of today, as I was yesterday (I have to work these days!) so will catch up on this thread later, or tomorrow, but.....

I really need everyone on this thread to try & see that it's just NOT as easy as one might think. Everyone (almost) has a view at one extreme or the other - as they are entitled to - but we have to accept that others have views too, & they - & you - are all entitled to their views.

This thread demonstrates it beautifully. Players who think Event 1 was perfect. Others who think it was just nonsense. THAT'S the problem. Doing what's right by everyone. Doing whats right by the recreational players (which, I must say, I think we did), & recognizing that one size does not fit all.

Is the answer somewhere between the 2 views? No, not necessarily, though in practice, it will be, but really, we should travel one road or nother, in my opinion.

It's the need to explain the concept that has been so awkward. Everyone at Brum last weekend soon realised what the concept was. They had a fun weekend - as I had pledged they would. Those that were not present - in some cases, as seats were not available - they form, at present, the view that we got it wrong. Who's to know who is right or wrong. It is NOT that simple!

I have said - time & time again, & repeated it since the weekend - we ARE open to changing the payout structure, if the Members think we need to. But read this thread, with an open mind, & you'll see that it just ain't a simple solution, because the range of views is so wide. Victory won't go to he who shouts loudest, or gives the smart-arse replies, it will be achieved by working our way there bit by bit, by sheer tenacity & hard work. Now, let's see if we can move this forward.

All the above applies to the Live Events, designed for a certain type of player. That, relatively - was the easy bit....! But now we have to look at wider issues in Tournament Poker. The "A" part of APAT, if you like. Now it WILL start to be "interesting"......

Have a good day. I'm off to The Broadway, working again (all "work", eh?) overnight. Then, tomorrow, as a treat & sort of day off, I'm off to The Sportsman in London for the £500 freeze. Straight home after that, on Friday morning early-wurly, then back to London on Saturday for the Sportsman Main Event. Prob stay down there, as I'm doing Poker Night Live on Sunday - the last edition from the current studio, I think. So bear with me if I'm not Online as much as I need to be to deal with issues during the next few days. Thanks.

A synchronised posting competition anyone?

[matt674]

It appears to me as though the APAT members are split into 2 distinct groups:

(1) Those who play poker for the fun of it, they attend purely out of the social aspect of the game - they don't care about the payout structure as they are happy just to play for the fun of it. Most of the people who attended the first event at Broadway seem to fall into this catagory.

(2) Those who play poker to make a profit, they are there mainly to win as much money as possible but will still have some fun to boot - they are worried about the top heavy structure and would prefer if it were flatter for future tourneys especially as they will probably have more runners. A lot of the members who didnt attend the event at the broadway but do play tournaments on a regular basis seem to fall in this catagory.

So if the members of group (1) are there purely for the fun of it and to them the money is irrelevant then would they object if the structure is changed to suit the members who fall into group (2)?

[lazaroonie]

It appears to me as though the APAT members are split into 2 distinct groups:

(1) Those who play poker for the fun of it, they attend purely out of the social aspect of the game - they don't care about the payout structure as they are happy just to play for the fun of it. Most of the people who attended the first event at Broadway seem to fall into this catagory.

(2) Those who play poker to make a profit, they are there mainly to win as much money as possible but will still have some fun to boot - they are worried about the top heavy structure and would prefer if it were flatter for future tourneys especially as they will probably have more runners. A lot of the members who didnt attend the event at the broadway but do play tournaments on a regular basis seem to fall in this catagory.

So if the members of group (1) are there purely for the fun of it and to them the money is irrelevant then would they object if the structure is changed to suit the members who fall into group (2)?

I would consider myself as more of a social player, who generally plays for the fun of it - but this does not mean that I would be happy with  "2 balloons and a comic" as a prize after sitting at a poker tablle for 2.5 days.

At the end of the day this is a £75 buyin tournament. If as is being encouraged with a "league system", you are expected to play in more than one throughout the country, you have to factor in expenses to this. This starts to get very expensive, and a placing of at least 4th is required to cover these costs. I dont believe this is sustainable.

Everyone who plays poker is somewhat motivated by the finanical rewards. Otherwise they would play snap.

[FlyingPig]

I played in Birmingham and come away with £300. That worked out to £23 an hour in my book, and thats not bad. Forget about your expenses you cant count that this is an amateur event.

The top heavy prize to me means that if I ever (sorry when) win one of these events I will get a tremendous payout that will make the whole thing even more special for a £75 buy in.

I hope it stays as it is........