This is something that I don't understand:
£4500 + $5000 package for first place, £300 for fourth through ninth places.
I thought that APAT tourneys were supposed to replicate festival main events.
After all the lobbying on here for flatter payout structures I am at a loss to understand the thinking behind this.
Hi Ralph,
Thank you for your question.
I will go through this in "bullet-point" style. I will stick to the Payout Structure & not go into other areas of contention.
Payout Structures are subjective. You cannot claim to be right, neither can we. Your view is valid, ours is valid, our Members views (of which you are one ) are valid. We will give the Members what they want, consistent with the aims of APAT, which was designed for recreatiional players.
I have long lobbied for flatter payout structures in circuit Festival Events. (and been pilloried for it!). I shall continue so to do. Circuit Festival Events are for a different breed of player to those we sought to serve in APAT.
To understand why we made them so top-end heavy,
one needs to think a little different from conventional wisdom.
I was entirely opposed to the peaky structure when I first discussed accepting APAT's Invitation to be their Year One Chairman, in fact, I almost turned it down on this subject alone.
Des Duffy explained to me his thinking patiently, carefully & persuasively. I began to see his point.
Then I was approached by PokerStars, one of our Sponsors. These guys are serious Pros, they know their stuff inside out. PokerStars are THE consummate professionals when it comes to understanding the Poker market. They made the same case. For me, when PokerStars talk, I listen good.
After some deep deliberation, I saw where they & Des were coming from, & decided I would go for it.
The concept is totally different to normal circuit Events. There are tens of thousands - hundreds of thousands? - of Recreational players out there who have never been near a Casino. They are frightened of casinos, the mere thought intimidates them.
These guys (our Members) are NOT in poker for money, they play it for the buzz it gives them. It would never occur to any of them to play poker for a living, or even a semi-living. It's a hobby. As such, the nature of the Payout Structure does not overly interest them. (Or has not done thus far). We award Gold, Silver & Bronze Medals for 1st, 2nd & 3rd - not cheapo jobs, either. We envisaged them playing for the glory of winning. If someone wants to play just for the money, APAT is not for them. During yesterday's Final, I was tableside the entire time. I never heard the word "deal" mentioned once, except when I announced ""shuffle Up & Deal"!).
We hope to run a parallel Pro-Am Series next year -
the Payout Structures will be completely different. Different market, different needs, different answer.
We advertised the payout structure from Day One. Member signed up fully aware of this - at least, we had tried to make sure they were aware of it, it was there for all to see. The Event was massively over-subscribed. This suggests to us that the Payout Structure was not as wrong - if wrong at all - as many had suggested. There is a silent majority out there, believe me! (In my opinion).
Nobody - not one, single soul - at the Event grumbled about the Payout Structure.
You have seen the batch of new Members on blonde today, many of them APAT-ers, & the comments they have made about what a good weekend it was.
In addition, I have received 27 e-Mails to my APAT e-addy today alone, every single one of them wholly complimentary. I only wish I could publish them, I am so proud of every one of them.
We said, again & again, in the teeth of aggressive & often quite rude sniping, that once Event # 1 was out of the way, we'd consult with our Members to see if they were happy, ask them to set up their own Committee, to collate & feed info through from the Membership. That process can start now. It was necessary for us to decide things for Event # 1, as it was important to us that everyone knew what the deal was BEFORE they signed up, & at that time, we did not have a Membership.
So, right now, at this moment, I think we got it right, simply because the weight of evidence suggests as much.
I may well, of course, be entirely wrong. But my role as Chaiman will be voted for at the end of Year One, so the Members can eject me (assuming I agree to stand again) if they believe I am taking them in the wrong direction.
I am bound to say, at this moment in time, I shall be surprised if we amend the Payout Structure for Event # 2, as it seemed to be perfectly received in Event # 1. But if the Members wish it, we will - obviously - consider it.
Finally, many APAT Members have spoken to me at length, & I made a point of talking to as many of them as possible over the weekend, on a one-to-one basis, "are you happy with the way things are going?". That's a loaded & unfair question, they may well be constrained from saying "no, it's crap", but my spidey senses suggest they meant it. But what WAS interesting was this comment, made in various forms by 6 or 7 of them. "Look, if you've got a detail here & there wrong, so what? We've got a great social weekend, you've added a Seat worth $8,000, we've had a ball, so even if it's not perfect, on balance it's been briliant".
And that's the thing -
on balance. I don't much like red cars, but give me a red Jensen & I'll not complain. Give some folks a red Jensen & they'll moan & whinge, because they prefer black! We just have to accept this.
We think - think - we've done a good job so far, but there are some folks who are never going to accept that, as they clearly have a hidden agenda. I exclude you, entirely & emphatically, from that category, the question was fair, & put in a civil tone.
I have, with Rich & Des, argued APAT's corner for almost 2 months now, patiently & politely throughout, in the face of some extremely aggressive, rude, & often pure mischievous questioning. I want to spend more of my time now developing the APAT theme, planning for the future, trying to introduce stuff across Tournament Poker that's badly needed & long overdue. More consistent rules (see my "I have a question" thread today), look after our "Clients" (the players) better, give them added value that did not exist before, by persuading Sponsors to actually ADD money, get more people into our wonderful game, but most of all, try & give it some structure, some consistency, give the players a voice, & the Venues too, they have cases to argue, they also deserve & want dialogue with us (the players) to help improve the product they offer.
If we get the odd detail wrong along the way, well, that's inevitable, but I hope you'll continue to be broadly supportive.
Author