Poker Forum > Seat Exchange
Hmmmmm
STEVEFRYER:
--- Quote from: Pilf on January 27, 2009, 18:07:10 PM ---
Because we are adding implied value that can not be measured before the tournament is over. It is my belief this is the key distinction.
--- End quote ---
So something that has no value now, but may have value next month?
monkeyman:
--- Quote from: Pilf on January 27, 2009, 18:07:10 PM ---
--- Quote from: STEVEFRYER on January 27, 2009, 17:20:24 PM ---
So why make the distinction of adding value up front or otherwise?
It"s coming back to that word value again, clearly seats are being sold above face "value"
--- End quote ---
Because we are adding implied value that can not be measured before the tournament is over. It is my belief this is the key distinction.
--- End quote ---
"Because we are adding implied value" - therefore the ticket is not being sold at face value. APAT only has two rules with regard to the transfer of seats. The first is "Transactions cannot occur at a value above the advertised buy in price for the event".
As you have admitted the deal struck includes value above the basic cost of the ticket, anyone selling a national seat including a clause in the transaction including a potential percentage of winnings of the purchaser, would appear to be in breach of the rules.
QED
CrizzyConnor:
--- Quote from: monkeyman on January 27, 2009, 16:30:35 PM ---
I hope this is just one of those one of those situations for which a ruling hasn"t been created, so can"t be stopped this time, but will be for future events.
i believe that practise of players selling seats at nationals, but retaining a percentage runs contrary to the spirit that APAT is supposed to stand for and needs to be quashed sooner rather than later.
--- End quote ---
^ THIS ^
Whether the value can be measured before or after the game has taken place there is still EXTRA value in selling with a percentage therefore I believe this should be against the rules also...
If you choose to swap % with players in the same competition or whatever then that"s fine and part of everyday poker but selling a seat with the promise of % as a sweetener to intice the transaction is wrong in my opinion...
Pilf:
Clearly we have a different view on this situation Steve. I don"t believe there is any value me trying to explain things much more from my perspective. I"m not a words man, more a numbers man, hence I play poker as a passtime and gamble for a living.
Because the implied value is directly linked to what we are purchasing I think this situation is ok (only my opinion of course)
If I were to play devils advocate I could state something like; the person who has 25% of me could theoretically sell this to somebody for £15 (Now that would be a bargain!) and therefore lock in a profit on the sale. However I do not see this as being a real problem that is currently facing APAT.
I think if APAT have/had released a statement stating that in this situation allowing only a % of winnings as a "sweetener" (way of adding implied value) then we should be happy with this for the time being until it does become a genuine issue.
Pilf:
--- Quote from: CrizzyConnor on January 27, 2009, 18:26:48 PM ---
If you choose to swap % with players in the same competition or whatever then that"s fine and part of everyday poker but selling a seat with the promise of % as a sweetener to intice the transaction is wrong in my opinion...
--- End quote ---
Why is this fine then?? APAT clearly has a rule stating that no deals are allowed in APAT tournaments. This would IMO constitute a deal.
FWIW I agree that this is fine, but if we look at the rules in Black and White as we appear to be doing, how is it fine?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version