APAT UK Amateur Poker Championship

[tikay]

I have re-sent the email, and apologise for my comments on the fourm if it hasnt been received for any reason.

In my previous e-mails to the APAT team they have always been quick to respond.

As to the username, it was a TYPO it was meant to say FlyingPig - Which is my Pokerstars name, and I cannot change it because we are only allowed to join once.. Ah well....

Hope my apologies are accepted..

Thanks - but I still don't have it!

No need to apologise, these things happen.

[tikay]

Got it now!!

[Bongo]

As to the username, it was a TYPO it was meant to say FlyingPig - Which is my Pokerstars name, and I cannot change it because we are only allowed to join once.. Ah well....

An admin can change the name for you though

[ifm]

my suggestion to how to allocate the seats is to give priority to players how have played the online series

those who have played them all get first refusaul down to those who have only played once

then the remaining seats given to those who havent played the online series

this would be the fairest policy IMHO

So I take it that you do not think that people who missed out on the first ballot should get their chance to play the second event before those who did.

I'm interested to read your reasoning, as some may well have been disillusioned by the fact that they did not get to play at Broadway.

I think this is an important point, those that were lucky first time around should not have the same chance, this has been mentioned in this thread earlier, can we (members) have a response please??

I would still like to know if i can have a refund as i cannot be messing about on Saturday.

[TightEnd]

I am sure a refund will not be a problem ifm, this has been stated on previous threads, the last time you were considering it. An email to customer@apat.com will suffice I am sure.

As to Event 1 participants being penalised by not being allowed in to Event 2 * I personally completely disagree with this

Event 1 had a one off ballot for special reasons, Event 2 has a more normal registration process and I think all members should apply on equal terms should they so wish, just as all who wanted to be sol were in the ballot

* on equal terms that is

[DesD]

I have re-sent the email, and apologise for my comments on the fourm if it hasnt been received for any reason.

In my previous e-mails to the APAT team they have always been quick to respond.

As to the username, it was a TYPO it was meant to say FlyingPig - Which is my Pokerstars name, and I cannot change it because we are only allowed to join once.. Ah well....

Hope my apologies are accepted..

Received and responded to.

Regards,

Des.

[Karabiner]

I am sure a refund will not be a problem ifm, this has been stated on previous threads, the last time you were considering it. An email to customer@apat.com will suffice I am sure.

As to Event 1 participants being penalised by not being allowed in to Event 2 * I personally completely disagree with this

Event 1 had a one off ballot for special reasons, Event 2 has a more normal registration process and I think all members should apply on equal terms should they so wish, just as all who wanted to be sol were in the ballot

* on equal terms that is

Come on Tighty, nobody is suggesting that those who played in the first live event should not be allowed to play in this one and I'm sure that not even you actually believe this to be the argument.

The suggestion is simply that those who missed out in the first ballot should have a prior option to play in this event.

[ifm]

No, so wrong, you were going to do a "more normal registration process" for event 1, popular opinion made you decide against that, yet you think that popular opinion has changed obviously.

From a personal point of view i missed the first time (i was unlucky) this time however i cannot be unlucky as i will not be available therfore i am excluded, thanks for that.

Capacity (could be) is the problem and you have decided (amongst yourselves (again obviously)) that this is not addressable (sp?) this time either so we are (again) left with a dodgy (i do not mean this personally!!!!!!) registration process.

I also would like an update on dik9's comment on the apa part of the apat, thanks in advance xxx

[TightEnd]

yes I know Karabiner

I said "on equal terms" at the bottom of my post


I don't believe that suggestion is either fair to those who won out in the ballot or would justify the logistical/organisational complications for us

[TightEnd]

.

From a personal point of view i missed the first time (i was unlucky) this time however i cannot be unlucky as i will not be available therfore i am excluded, thanks for that.

how can we be to blame for when you are and are not available?

and I'll get Des to address the association developments

ta

[Karabiner]

yes I know Karabiner

I said "on equal terms" at the bottom of my post


I don't believe that suggestion is either fair to those who won out in the ballot or would justify the logistical/organisational complications for us

In that case you may find that the ballot is the deciding factor in the rankings.

[ifm]

how can we be to blame for when you are and are not available?

LOL, now that IS funny

[TightEnd]

yes I know Karabiner

I said "on equal terms" at the bottom of my post


I don't believe that suggestion is either fair to those who won out in the ballot or would justify the logistical/organisational complications for us

In that case you may find that the ballot is the deciding factor in the rankings.

at the end of seven live events and over 20 online events, I hope not

I accept totally though that in a perfect world the entry procedures for all events would have been identical (ie no randomness in Event 1 entry)

[ifm]

No, so wrong, you were going to do a "more normal registration process" for event 1, popular opinion made you decide against that, yet you think that popular opinion has changed obviously.

*Cough*

[TightEnd]

I have just emailed Des to ask him to update you

In ten minutes time you can cough again to remind us