Why is the APAT payout structure so top heavy ?

[TightEnd]

As tikay has said, there will be a members committee appointed to reflect the views of the members back to the board. These positions are to be elected in the coming months. If they wish to poll, perfectly fine!

[dik9]

I do apologize then....Sorry

but who reads T&C's

[TightEnd]

Its a fair point dik9....I'll have a word

[M3boy]

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!

[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.

[ericstoner]

As one of the 'more experienced' live game players among those who attended the 1st APA tour  event,I'd like to add my thoughts to the payout debate.

I have always backed flatter payout structures, in the bread and butter daily casino based re-buy and frezzeout tournaments. This spreading of the prize money will allow more players to cash in a greater number of events thus maintaining an interest in turning up for more tournaments,therefore keeping a larger pool of players to maintain liquidity in the live game.

The APA event in the Broadway differed fundamentally, in that it DID have a large percentage of new players,who, like playing the lottery, were only interested in the main prize,along with the medals and money for the runners up.

In my mind this was pure poker, which is even more top heavy i.e. winner takes all, with the addition of a return if you were not quite up to the mark.

It should also  be noted that even though the payout was written up for all to see,at all times no mention of the disparity in prizemoney was heard and no deal was mentioned. I have an idea the notion of dealmaking was beyond the ken of many of the players.

I had lunch with Matthew(suited jock), Scott (Scott) And Cristian(Brainn) on sunday and was both surprised and glad that, for this 'one off event' no carping about the top heavy payout was made.

So yes if the were a weekly/monthly series of games, I'd certinly want a flatter payout, cos of the need to make occasional returns to fund continual entry fees.

If the tour brings more new players into the game, then its OK, as an occasional one off to play these type of payouts,and of course it couldn't be maintained  over a long period.

Finnally, one point, if you are playing a final table of 10 players it seems churlish to only pay 9.

[matt674]

As one of the 'more experienced' live game players among those who attended the 1st APA tour  event,I'd like to add my thoughts to the payout debate.

I have always backed flatter payout structures, in the bread and butter daily casino based re-buy and frezzeout tournaments. This spreading of the prize money will allow more players to cash in a greater number of events thus maintaining an interest in turning up for more tournaments,therefore keeping a larger pool of players to maintain liquidity in the live game.

The APA event in the Broadway differed fundamentally, in that it DID have a large percentage of new players,who, like playing the lottery, were only interested in the main prize,along with the medals and money for the runners up.

In my mind this was pure poker, which is even more top heavy i.e. winner takes all, with the addition of a return if you were not quite up to the mark.

It should also  be noted that even though the payout was written up for all to see,at all times no mention of the disparity in prizemoney was heard and no deal was mentioned. I have an idea the notion of dealmaking was beyond the ken of many of the players.

I had lunch with Matthew(suited jock), Scott (Scott) And Cristian(Brainn) on sunday and was both surprised and glad that, for this 'one off event' no carping about the top heavy payout was made.

So yes if the were a weekly/monthly series of games, I'd certinly want a flatter payout, cos of the need to make occasional returns to fund continual entry fees.

If the tour brings more new players into the game, then its OK, as an occasional one off to play these type of payouts,and of course it couldn't be maintained  over a long period.

Finnally, one point, if you are playing a final table of 10 players it seems churlish to only pay 9.

But how can you say that you are happy for the APAT to run all their payouts on one level but you want all the other tournaments you play on a regular basis to be different, a more flatter structure?

The APAT wants to be the voice of the recreational/amateur player by taking their views to the casinos and Gaming Commission and trying to get them to change the way they run poker. They cant run their tournaments as a "one off" and preach to the rest that they should change theirs too otherwise the "one off" becomes the "norm".......

[Karabiner]

Exactly ! One of the main objectives of APA is to present a model that should be an example to casino cardrooms.

This includes blind structure and payout structure, or certainly should do imo.

[dik9]

But how can you say that you are happy for the APAT to run all their payouts on one level but you want all the other tournaments you play on a regular basis to be different, a more flatter structure?

The APAT wants to be the voice of the recreational/amateur player by taking their views to the casinos and Gaming Commission and trying to get them to change the way they run poker. They cant run their tournaments as a "one off" and preach to the rest that they should change theirs too otherwise the "one off" becomes the "norm".......

Accrington Stanley

My point precisely

[Claw75]

just an observation, and obviously those who were on the final table can speak for themselves, but I am hardly surprised there was no talk of a deal when it has been made pretty clear that APAT were against the idea of deals, and were going as far as putting steps in place to make deal making difficult. 

It would've taken a brave man (or woman) to be the one to step up and say "who wants to do business then?"

[CelticGeezeer]

What is wrong with deals ? Not sure I have ever played live when some sort of deal wasn't done.

[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.

[ThinkerJE]

I played in the first event and finished 14th (had an accident with pocket 3's).  I think that the large first prize and seat to the EPT actually added to the event.  This was a chance for players who do not make their living from poker to play with the big boys at the EPT, thats what I wanted to win and I was not too bothered about the minor places.  I take the point some guys have made about travelling expenses.  I only had to travel from Wolverhampton so no hotel bill or flight fare needed, but for others like the Scottish guys or the guy from Cornwall (sorry I have forgot your name mate) it would have cost more.  However I intend to be in Scotland for event 2 (great news about the increased capacity) and will treat the weekend as a great social occasion with the chance to win an EPT seat.  The APAT atmosphere was truely brilliant this weekend, I really felt part of a club of like minded poker lovers who wanted to have fun and play the game hard but with a smile.  We may be part of the Amateur Poker Association but there was nothing "Amateur" about the standard of play or how the event was run, first class.

[DesD]

The APAT wants to be the voice of the recreational/amateur player by taking their views to the casinos and Gaming Commission and trying to get them to change the way they run poker. They cant run their tournaments as a "one off" and preach to the rest that they should change theirs too otherwise the "one off" becomes the "norm".......

Yes, this is a very good point Matt.

I certainly do not envisage casinos introducing this type of payout structure per se, just as I do not see them removing £10 rebuys with 12 minute levels from their everyday schedules.  

However, I would hope that to gain an APAT endorsement, at some point in the future, casinos would run regular deepstack tournaments with added value and a decent structure to give players a more regular and entertaining experience.  

We will look at the payout structure, as part of our overall post evaluation of the Birmingham event.  However, as I said in my earlier post it is important that any change is entirely right prior to us pushing the button.  

Cheers,

Des.

[dik9]

I do not see them removing £10 rebuys with 12 minute levels from their everyday schedules.  

Name and Shame