Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => General Discussion => Topic started by: Des on December 21, 2011, 22:57:34 PM
-
Hi all,
A fair bit of discussion has taken place between the team and myself with regards the "format" that we utilise for Season 6 of the National Online League.
I"d like to open up this discussion to the players and we"d welcome your thoughts on the options that we are currently looking at, and would welcome any further development ideas that you might have.
For the purposes of this discussion it would be good to focus in on the topline League format, as opposed to the night we play on, prizes, structures etc. We can finalise in those areas once we have the topline format nailed down.
In summary, there are two topline formats currently on the table for Season 6 and they are as follows:-
1) We reduce the number of clubs to approximately 8 to 10. Those clubs become regionally based as opposed to city based, so they would all be large clubs; think Ireland, Scotland, North of England, South of England, Central England etc etc. In this format a degree of regional identity is retained and groups of players who have been playing with each other for several seasons would continue to do so.
2) We retain the current identity of approximately 20 odd poker clubs but we introduce a draft (American Football style) whereby each club is assigned a captain (ideally local to the area) and we then evenly allocate players to each club (based on league performance over the last couple of years) to create one large division of teams, even in number and ability. In this scenario, we would remove the geographical requirement for players to play for their "local" clubs.
In either case we would ensure that the scoring allows for more clubs to score points every matchday to reward more clubs.
There are pros and cons to both approaches and I"m sure you will have queries around how each team would be finally formed in either format. However, in an ideal world where we could make both options work without issue, which of the two formats most appeals and why?
Cheers,
Des.
-
Shortest lived captaincy of all time coming up!!
-
Shortest lived captaincy of all time coming up!!
Haha, you won"t get away that easy!
-
Oh and I like the idea of a draft, that sounds like loads of fun :) can I trade a first round draft pick to ensure I get scouse please?
-
I think that due to most clubs forming a varied amount of "togetherness" over the past couple of seasons it would be a such a huge shame to lose a culbs indenity with a more regional approach.
Clubs such as, and certain not limited too, Luton, Glasgow, West Mids, Carlisle, Kent, have worked hard to build up a core of players, and the whole club work to bring players into the realm to grow the club and APAT itself.
So for me option 2 is a must, but I"m not sure how the allocation of players would work..but that could be a later discussion.
-
Oh and I like the idea of a draft, that sounds like loads of fun :) can I trade a first round draft pick to ensure I get scouse please?
hands off fat boy ;D
-
Can I trade a second round pick to ensure I DON"T get Ger? :D
-
Can I trade a second round pick to ensure I DON"T get Ger? :D
someone might want me 8)
-
Can I trade a second round pick to ensure I DON"T get Ger? :D
someone might want me 8)
Team Dove Soap do ;D
-
What does it really matter where the Captain is from..?
When I joined two years ago I plumped for my home town of Liverpool but it did not make much difference as I was playing online. I am still playing online and will start going to bricks and mortar in the new year. I suppose then playing for a regional online team means that I may well meet some of "My team mates".
In option 2 what difference would it make where the captain was from if APAT are going to select his squad.
I like the idea of the teams supposedly being equal, based on previous years results and it may well work initially but hasn"t the strength of this league come about by the online friendship generated by the teams. Will these friendships develop within a new online team or will people want to stick with players they have played with in previous seasons.
Option 1 is an easy option I feel and would be the choice of many who would prefer just a subtle change.
Option 2 will definitly change the whole dynamic of the League. I think it could work well, but only if the numbers of players of whatever level could remain consistant for each matchday. Along with changing the way teams are selected is a need to change to way the points are awarded, to keep more teams involved for longer in the season.
I have only one question to ask..... How would newcomers to the league be allocated a team... Personal knowledge of their poker skills or be treated as a novice..?
My choice at this moment, without others to sway me this early in the thread is for Option 2.. It may well change...
-
Can I trade a second round pick to ensure I DON"T get Ger? :D
someone might want me 8)
Team Dove Soap do ;D
memories - oh the memories
-
Can I trade a second round pick to ensure I DON"T get Ger? :D
someone might want me 8)
Team Dove Soap do ;D
memories - oh the memories
indeedy ;D ;D
-
I think that due to most clubs forming a varied amount of "togetherness" over the past couple of seasons it would be a such a huge shame to lose a culbs indenity with a more regional approach.
Clubs such as, and certain not limited too, Luton, Glasgow, West Mids, Carlisle, Kent, have worked hard to build up a core of players, and the whole club work to bring players into the realm to grow the club and APAT itself.
So for me option 2 is a must, but I"m not sure how the allocation of players would work..but that could be a later discussion.
Waz it sounds to me with option 2 you would have a Luton club, but possibly only a Luton captain with the rest of the team being made up from all over the country?
The Draft thing should make for even teams though.
-
Firstly thanks for the comment Stu , felt a bit unrecognised after not making the shortlist for APAT player of the year (even though near the top of total rankings,finishing 2nd in div 1 and leading England to their best ever finish). But thats another story lol )
As for the league I think good idea to make 1 division with bigger teams and as for cities losing identity think this will be soon forgotten into the season. Putting teams together is asically what happened to birmingham / Walsall last year. Looking at it from my own point of view I believe that north west would be Liverpools team encompassing Carlisle and Manchester. Dont think there other teams in that area.
Then Scotland, Wales , Ireland as teams not sure of numbers etc .
In rest of England not too sure maybe north east , south west, south east again not sure on numbers etc for regular players.
Just please please please do not give west midlands any more players they got their boost last year !!
This really is a tough job to do evenly and hope it is done I enjoyed playing the league this year , although as a team if it is like last year when basically there is a team that is nailed on to win from the outset then i will not play it. I recruited a lot of players last year to play for us and i know Luton did massively and no one still got close to west mids.
I know it went down to last few games but that is because west mids took foot off the gas with 6 or 7 games left and a lot of players didnt bother playing until luton caught back up .
Anyway good luck on developing this great concpept
-
Scotland FTW! ;D
-
Firstly thanks for the comment Stu , felt a bit unrecognised after not making the shortlist for APAT player of the year (even though near the top of total rankings,finishing 2nd in div 1 and leading England to their best ever finish). But thats another story lol )
any time mate, felt the need to recognise genius :p
-
Waz it sounds to me with option 2 you would have a Luton club, but possibly only a Luton captain with the rest of the team being made up from all over the country?
No change then? (although you forgot to mention rest of Europe too)
-
Just please please please do not give west midlands any more players they got their boost last year !!
No kidding!! We almost managed to increase our numbers to equal Liverpool and Luton, but not quite.
-
Much prefer option 1 to option 2.
I see the need for an overhaul, but option 2 is basically killing off the old league and starting afresh and (and I know I say this with Luton tinted glasses and it"s different for smaller teams with different challenges etc) some clubs have really developed a group camaradarie (sp?), for example there"s been talk of a quarterly Luton home game, this would not have happened without the league.
At least with Option 1 the whole team may remain together as part of a larger team.
Good Luck with whatever"s decided, I will play when I can regardless.
Oh And...
Scotland FTW! ;D
You won"t get past the first round ;)
-
Option 1
For purposes of illustration only
Scotland
Ireland
NW England (Liv, Manc, Carlisle)
NE England (Leeds and up)
West Mids (up to the potteries, down to Worcestershire, down to oxford etc)
East Mids (Leics up to Sheffield)
East (Luton, East Anglia)
West (Bristol, Wales and Westwards...)
London and South East (N Lon, S Lon, Kent)
South (Solent and across the South coast going West)
creating 10 teams on a level playing field for numbers
deeper scoring system to make more teams score points every week
some team identity retained
you play with your mates, still
new players are recruited to join their region
Option 2
possibility 1) Would be a "slotting" process rather than a draft.
ie we rank every player over their online league results going back two years
We publish that list
We form ten teams,
Team 1 gets players ranked 1, 20, 31, 40, 51 etc
Team 2 gets players ranked 2,21,32,41,52
and so on
- Whilst there are no guarantees, these teams should be very even
possibility 2) A draft. Captains chosen and they pick players from a list, according to who they want most.
- This allows them to retain some regional identity, if they wish, via picking
- Logistics of organisation might be tough
- New players allocated to teams in turn/at random once the league starts
that"s some meat on the bones for people to discuss
-
Option 1
For purposes of illustration only
Scotland
Ireland
NW England (Liv, Manc, Carlisle)
NE England (Leeds and up)
West Mids (up to the potteries, down to Worcestershire, down to oxford etc)
East Mids (Leics up to Sheffield)
East (Luton, East Anglia)
West (Bristol, Wales and Westwards...)
London and South East (N Lon, S Lon, Kent)
South (Solent and across the South coast going West)
creating 10 teams on a level playing field for numbers
deeper scoring system to make more teams score points every week
some team identity retained
you play with your mates, still
new players are recruited to join their region
Option 2
possibility 1) Would be a "slotting" process rather than a draft.
ie we rank every player over their online league results going back two years
We publish that list
We form ten teams,
Team 1 gets players ranked 1, 20, 31, 40, 51 etc
Team 2 gets players ranked 2,21,32,41,52
and so on
- Whilst there are no guarantees, these teams should be very even
possibility 2) A draft. Captains chosen and they pick players from a list, according to who they want most.
- This allows them to retain some regional identity, if they wish, via picking
- Logistics of organisation might be tough
- New players allocated to teams in turn/at random once the league starts
that"s some meat on the bones for people to discuss
Just for a bit of clarification. The 2nd option would see us creating 20 teams, not 10. In reality enabling 20 captains to pick from the list of 300 odd players is unlikely to happen, so assume option 2 would be delivered as a form of seeded draw, but it would be done in the fairest possible way. So for example, if Team A gets the first player in round 1 of the draw, they would get the last player in round 2, and so on.
-
yes thanks, that makes sense
Here I am currently, with everything we are planning!
(http://www.aboutfacesentertainers.com/images/jugglers/newlin_n/newlin_n2.jpg)
-
Just please please please do not give west midlands any more players they got their boost last year !!
No kidding!! We almost managed to increase our numbers to equal Liverpool and Luton, but not quite.
Correctamundo!
-
Option 2 for me I reckon.
-
Option 2 for me I reckon.
Sorry, I meant option 1. (I"m an idiot.)
-
Option 1
South (Solent and across the South coast going West)
Great - so we would amalgamate with Plymouth"s two active players. I assumed the proposal would include us combining with Kent and/or London. You will be aware that APAT hasn"t taken off in the South, possibly due to every tournament being a long way away until now. [Thanks for Brighton btw - lots of Solent players going.] Giving us a region which seems comparable in size to others, but is basically a desert, is not equitable. Would Sussex players at least have to play for their own region instead of going with Kent and their lovely captain? TBH, I feel that the regional format is a bit tired now.
Love Option 2, whether drafts or seeded. Should make for a much more competitive league, rather than one where the players of one team are competing to see which of them gets the free seats this time.
-
Great - so we would amalgamate with Plymouth"s two active players. I assumed the proposal would include us combining with Kent and/or London.
It might do, I was merely putting an idea out there.
The aim under either option is to make for much more competitive leagues, with every team in the hunt for longer and thus added value seats are not a foregone conclusion. Should lead to higher league numbers overall, for longer
If Combining Solent in a different manner than I suggested under option 1 helps acheives that, then good
If the most common view is that people are happy to drop local teams, regional teams and play in teams formed another way, such as drafting or slotting then fine too
-
Option 1 for me, with Wales maybe either being a team of its own, or split into North West and South West if not in a team of its own.
-
Just please please please do not give west midlands any more players they got their boost last year !!
No kidding!! We almost managed to increase our numbers to equal Liverpool and Luton, but not quite.
We got numbers cos we went out and recruited you just carried on with walsall ,birmingham with odd player from natural discovery. And also you got well established players in APAT all capable of scoring poins and also when required to play every week . We get newbies to APAT and a lot new to poker .If you do not receive more players maybe you will have to get off your arse and recruit people! I can you see you biting now cos there a chance it will be on a level playing field at the start !
-
I like the sounds of all 3 options to be honest . All have pros and cons !
The best one in theory is the regional one but that still has a chance to have super teams ??
The other 2 would stop this but not have same identity .
Tough one really wouldnt know which i would prefer to be honest !
Tough job to decide.
Did think scoring system worked well from last year though would like to see that kept . I think that was just about spot on and would work even better with increased numbers , still exactly same points scoring players etc !
-
Option 1 for me, with Wales maybe either being a team of its own, or split into North West and South West if not in a team of its own.
I understand that Wales is being subsumed into the West Midlands dynasty.
-
Option 1 for me, with Wales maybe either being a team of its own, or split into North West and South West if not in a team of its own.
I understand that Wales is being subsumed into the West Midlands dynasty.
Excellent - that would help to level the playing field, and get us almost up to the size of Liverpool!! Great post John.
-
Option 1 for me, with Wales maybe either being a team of its own, or split into North West and South West if not in a team of its own.
I understand that Wales is being subsumed into the West Midlands dynasty.
Of course not!
-
Keep it civil please. Rich and I are doing everything we can at the moment to restrain Paulie... ;D
-
I would say this, rivalry is good, any league in any sphere thrives on it
However petty rivalry is not, and not really what APAT is about. A few comments make me scratch my head and go "say what?" :)
Given the options, which makes it more likely that you will participate all year and will ensure that the league is competitive for as long as possible?..that"s question 1
Questions 2...does belonging to a team with regional/local identity matter to you? Is it time to move on from that and form teams in different ways?
-
Option 1 for me but just have
Scotland
Ireland
Wales
England north
England south
England central.
If this doesn"t solve the disparity of numbers problem then I quite like option 2.1
-
Did think scoring system worked well from last year though would like to see that kept . I think that was just about spot on and would work even better with increased numbers , still exactly same points scoring players etc !
^^Agree with this - the ramp up of points toward the winning spots was so much better than the linear points increase of prior years.
Option 1 for me - think it"s important to keep some sort of localised team spirit, otherwise the whole team concept could lose it"s bearing altogether.
In option 2, how would players be aligned to teams if they joined half way through a season? We would also lose the recruitment that currently occurs.... why would a team captain bother to spend time trying to recruit, only to then see the new person aligned to a different team.
-
Busy on here today, given that it"s a work day and all.
-
Option 1
South (Solent and across the South coast going West)
Great - so we would amalgamate with Plymouth"s two active players. I assumed the proposal would include us combining with Kent and/or London. You will be aware that APAT hasn"t taken off in the South, possibly due to every tournament being a long way away until now. [Thanks for Brighton btw - lots of Solent players going.] Giving us a region which seems comparable in size to others, but is basically a desert, is not equitable. Would Sussex players at least have to play for their own region instead of going with Kent and their lovely captain? TBH, I feel that the regional format is a bit tired now.
Love Option 2, whether drafts or seeded. Should make for a much more competitive league, rather than one where the players of one team are competing to see which of them gets the free seats this time.
John,
If it helps, I"m pondering pushing APAT much more in Dorset, Devon, Cornwall now that I have moved a bit further West. It would be great if we could get an APAT event in Bristol perhaps, but can understand that it would clash with Cardiff/Birmingham as far as catchment areas go.
It"s a tough balance to get right.
On the draft scenario, how does it work for players that haven"t played APAT before, and therefore wouldn"t be ranked ? Also, what if a player gets allocated to a team, but then chooses not to play as much next season. Surely that would hinder that team considerably ?
-
Sorry Steve, crossed over on your post there. Think we are asking a similar question.
Appreciate the comments on the scoring last year. A lot of time and effort went into trying to perfect that and some positive comments back are gratefully appreciated by all involved. ;D
-
This proposed reshuffle will undoubtedly address the current inequity in the team sizes and bravo Apat for their considerable efforts. My fear is that the potential for the league to be a recruitment competition remains entact.
Now that may be beneficial for Apat and would certainly be a nice benefit to any potential sponsor but, I suspect that if a couple of diligent captains actively and successfully recruit a decent number of players we will ultimately find ourselves back in the same inequitable hole.
In that environment the Captain"s role may again become crucial and overly burdensome and it"s highly likely we will see a repeat of this seasons mass resignations.
-
Definitely stick with regions for me.
Don"t understand the need to start with a "level playing field". Why? We don"t get to the end of the football premiership each season and start reforming all the teams so that next season it"s all lovely and nice and fair for everyone. Some teams are better than others, that"s just the way it is and those are the teams to beat.
Walsall were the team to beat, now it"s West Mids. The main reason for this is as Scouse said "you got well established players in APAT all capable of scoring poins and also when required to play every week ." The fact is, those players come from the West Midlands. Therefore West Mids has the strongest team, it"s not rocket science. If it were just down to numbers then Luton would have stormed it. It"s not, it"s about the team with the best players. Which is as it should be.
I first discovered APAT through joining the Walsall team then through that joining the BCPC and moving on to playing in the live tourneys. Through that i"ve met a lot of friends who are in my team, others in the BCPC and even more in APAT. None of that would have happened if i"d simply been allocated to some team of randoms who could be from anywhere in the country. I"d certainly lose interest if it went down that route and I suddenly found myself in team Random 7.
Oh and keep the scoring system, it"s spot on.
-
Option 1
South (Solent and across the South coast going West)
Great - so we would amalgamate with Plymouth"s two active players. I assumed the proposal would include us combining with Kent and/or London. You will be aware that APAT hasn"t taken off in the South, possibly due to every tournament being a long way away until now. [Thanks for Brighton btw - lots of Solent players going.] Giving us a region which seems comparable in size to others, but is basically a desert, is not equitable. Would Sussex players at least have to play for their own region instead of going with Kent and their lovely captain? TBH, I feel that the regional format is a bit tired now.
Love Option 2, whether drafts or seeded. Should make for a much more competitive league, rather than one where the players of one team are competing to see which of them gets the free seats this time.
John,
If it helps, I"m pondering pushing APAT much more in Dorset, Devon, Cornwall now that I have moved a bit further West. It would be great if we could get an APAT event in Bristol perhaps, but can understand that it would clash with Cardiff/Birmingham as far as catchment areas go.
It"s a tough balance to get right.
On the draft scenario, how does it work for players that haven"t played APAT before, and therefore wouldn"t be ranked ? Also, what if a player gets allocated to a team, but then chooses not to play as much next season. Surely that would hinder that team considerably ?
I don"t think that poker is such a skill fest that the odd player who may be a "7" in knowledge and ability terms, is likely to get far greater results over a 10 match season than a player who is a "3" for example. I think it is right to separate them as best we can with the understanding that anomoly placements will happen.
So, as far as new players are concerned, there will be an element of "luck of the draw". But they would be allocated to the next team in the rotation, who may have had a player less than some of their competitors to that point.
Ultimately, in the seeded/draft scenario we are unlikely to have super teams and that is the primary objective of that approach.
In addition, reducing the number of overall teams concerns me a bit; not to mention how new players might perceive a league that contains such apparently disparate teams as Ireland and West Midlands for example.
My concern is as Steve and Waz mentioned earlier, what happens if teams lose that local feel? I think their two teams and one or two others contained players with a lot of passion for the game, but very few of the other League teams did. Most of our community interaction occurs at the live events, so players know each other across quite a wide geographical spread. I"m tempted to think that passionate players would be equally passionate no matter which team they play for; particularly if the team they represent has a shot at winning points on each and every matchday.
-
If it helps, I"m pondering pushing APAT much more in Dorset, Devon, Cornwall now that I have moved a bit further West.
"I"m pondering pushing APAT". Does that mean your back? Yay!
Right, where"s our advent calendar.
:)
-
Definitely stick with regions for me.
Don"t understand the need to start with a "level playing field". Why? We don"t get to the end of the football premiership each season and start reforming all the teams so that next season it"s all lovely and nice and fair for everyone. Some teams are better than others, that"s just the way it is and those are the teams to beat.
Walsall were the team to beat, now it"s West Mids. The main reason for this is as Scouse said "you got well established players in APAT all capable of scoring poins and also when required to play every week ." The fact is, those players come from the West Midlands. Therefore West Mids has the strongest team, it"s not rocket science. If it were just down to numbers then Luton would have stormed it. It"s not, it"s about the team with the best players. Which is as it should be.
I first discovered APAT through joining the Walsall team then through that joining the BCPC and moving on to playing in the live tourneys. Through that i"ve met a lot of friends who are in my team, others in the BCPC and even more in APAT. None of that would have happened if i"d simply been allocated to some team of randoms who could be from anywhere in the country. I"d certainly lose interest if it went down that route and I suddenly found myself in team Random 7.
Oh and keep the scoring system, it"s spot on.
I think that it"s easier to state that Andy, if you"re in the best team in the League. :)
Ultimately APAT will be guided by the players as to which format to go with in Season 6; but we do have a responsibility to ensure the format works for as many players as possible.
-
Given the options, which makes it more likely that you will participate all year and will ensure that the league is competitive for as long as possible?..that"s question 1
Questions 2...does belonging to a team with regional/local identity matter to you? Is it time to move on from that and form teams in different ways?
1. I will participate in as many games as I can irrespective of the final decision
2. It"s not the regional aspect that matters to me, it"s the established group of Luton players who have become a community which matters to me (very specifically me, taking your question literally) but as per my earlier post I have no doubt my views would be different if I played for a smaller club. So for me re part two of the question, selfishly "no", selflessly "maybe".
-
We got numbers cos we went out and recruited you just carried on with walsall ,birmingham with odd player from natural discovery. And also you got well established players in APAT all capable of scoring poins and also when required to play every week . We get newbies to APAT and a lot new to poker.
I echo most of Scouse"s point from a Luton perspective. Recruitment has been part of the game and our skipper has been brilliant at it plus the fact that Rich Baker bought a lot of his mates in and our German friend Achim chose to join Luton and recruited some compatriots
"newbies to APAT and a lot new to Poker" - never really thought about that but it"s spot on.
West Mids had the quality and that shone through in the end, but wasn"t a team with loads of newbies pushing you at the end exactly what the APAT spirit should be about?
-
This proposed reshuffle will undoubtedly address the current inequity in the team sizes and bravo Apat for their considerable efforts. My fear is that the potential for the league to be a recruitment competition remains entact.
Now that may be beneficial for Apat and would certainly be a nice benefit to any potential sponsor but, I suspect that if a couple of diligent captains actively and successfully recruit a decent number of players we will ultimately find ourselves back in the same inequitable hole.
In that environment the Captain"s role may again become crucial and overly burdensome and it"s highly likely we will see a repeat of this seasons mass resignations.
I"d be very happy for captains to lose this responsibility. Personally I"d rather have a lot of happier captains and players telling their friends that the League is competitive and good fun, than desperately trying to recruit for their teams. In option 2 the players would be allocated to teams as evenly as possible and I"d rather see a league that works first and foremost, rather than one that is growing, but unhappily.
-
If it helps, I"m pondering pushing APAT much more in Dorset, Devon, Cornwall now that I have moved a bit further West.
"I"m pondering pushing APAT". Does that mean your back? Yay!
Right, where"s our advent calendar.
:)
Pondering depends on a lot of things. ;D
No time for an advent calendar, but have you tried Chipaccrual"s Big Christmas End of Year Quiz (http://www.apat.com/forum/index.php?topic=10146.0) ?
-
The regionalised teams scenario (Option 1) is the only viable alternative for me.
It means that those who have worked hard to get a good team ethos will not see that hard work destroyed and the smaller groups will still be together albeit as part of bigger teams. I imagine that APAT would be able to find out the average number of runners from each club last season, so should reasonably easily be able to ensure that the new teams are of similar numerical size. It would also make sense if APAT looked to run a live event in each "region" so everyone gets a "home" game.
A "team" comprised of 15 people randomly assembled from all over the country is not a team for me it"s just a group of individuals put together - It"s like something off the X-factor. Surely the individual should choose whether he wants to play for a certain team or not - not just allocated into Pot C at the whim of someone else - Not for me thank you.
I do think with only one division, there is some scope to alter the team/individual dynamic with regards any possible added value. For example the top three points scorers from the winning team get added value seats and the top three individuals (excluding the top three individuals from the winning team) also get added value seats. This means if a similar scoring system is used as last year, individuals will nearly always have a reason to turn up, even if their team is doing badly.
I also think we need to remember the key point of APAT to recruit more players would be better served by the regional format.
-
Definitely stick with regions for me.
Don"t understand the need to start with a "level playing field". Why? We don"t get to the end of the football premiership each season and start reforming all the teams so that next season it"s all lovely and nice and fair for everyone. Some teams are better than others, that"s just the way it is and those are the teams to beat.
Walsall were the team to beat, now it"s West Mids. The main reason for this is as Scouse said "you got well established players in APAT all capable of scoring poins and also when required to play every week ." The fact is, those players come from the West Midlands. Therefore West Mids has the strongest team, it"s not rocket science. If it were just down to numbers then Luton would have stormed it. It"s not, it"s about the team with the best players. Which is as it should be.
I first discovered APAT through joining the Walsall team then through that joining the BCPC and moving on to playing in the live tourneys. Through that i"ve met a lot of friends who are in my team, others in the BCPC and even more in APAT. None of that would have happened if i"d simply been allocated to some team of randoms who could be from anywhere in the country. I"d certainly lose interest if it went down that route and I suddenly found myself in team Random 7.
Oh and keep the scoring system, it"s spot on.
I think that it"s easier to state that Andy, if you"re in the best team in the League. :)
Ultimately APAT will be guided by the players as to which format to go with in Season 6; but we do have a responsibility to ensure the format works for as many players as possible.
Maybe it is but if I were in one of the other teams i"d be doing my damndest to try and beat the teams at the top. And i"d be trying to recruit better players so we could do just that. It"s been close the last 2 seasons at the top and although we"ve won it could very easily have gone otherwise.
I understand the need to make it work for as many as possible, i just don"t feel that teams of randoms is the way forward.
-
If it helps, I"m pondering pushing APAT much more in Dorset, Devon, Cornwall now that I have moved a bit further West.
"I"m pondering pushing APAT". Does that mean your back? Yay!
Right, where"s our advent calendar.
:)
Pondering depends on a lot of things. ;D
No time for an advent calendar, but have you tried Chipaccrual"s Big Christmas End of Year Quiz (http://www.apat.com/forum/index.php?topic=10146.0) ?
Tried it, failed miserably! Will certainly give it a go at some point though.
-
Pondering depends on a lot of things. ;D
No it doesnt, stop mincing about and get back involved please and thanks :p :D :D :D
-
The regionalised teams scenario (Option 1) is the only viable alternative for me.
A "team" comprised of 15 people randomly assembled from all over the country is not a team for me it"s just a group of individuals put together - It"s like something off the X-factor.
To be fair, Little Mix and One Direction were put together. Shows what a team of individuals can become...
-
I don"t think that poker is such a skill fest that the odd player who may be a "7" in knowledge and ability terms, is likely to get far greater results over a 10 match season than a player who is a "3" for example. I think it is right to separate them as best we can with the understanding that anomoly placements will happen.
So, as far as new players are concerned, there will be an element of "luck of the draw". But they would be allocated to the next team in the rotation, who may have had a player less than some of their competitors to that point.
Ultimately, in the seeded/draft scenario we are unlikely to have super teams and that is the primary objective of that approach.
In addition, reducing the number of overall teams concerns me a bit; not to mention how new players might perceive a league that contains such apparently disparate teams as Ireland and West Midlands for example.
My concern is as Steve and Waz mentioned earlier, what happens if teams lose that local feel? I think their two teams and one or two others contained players with a lot of passion for the game, but very few of the other League teams did. Most of our community interaction occurs at the live events, so players know each other across quite a wide geographical spread. I"m tempted to think that passionate players would be equally passionate no matter which team they play for; particularly if the team they represent has a shot at winning points on each and every matchday.
agree with all of this. well put Des.
-
Really torn on all this, whatever happens I"ll play as many as I can regardless.
If we go down the random route I think this will lose the "my local team" feel which is a real shame, especially to the teams the like of Luton and others who have grown together and are a real community. I know for Stockton as well we"d all be gutted to lose the sense of all playing together, even though we knew really we didn"t have the depth to contend.
However reading some of the comments on here and elsewhere maybe the sniping between teams and players would be completely eliminated if we lost the local / regional aspect. A complete scrapping and creation of a new team structure, even if they are initially randoms could generate new friendships and comradery and put a stop to the problems of region vs region which will always create conflicts. Something I"d definitely like to see the back of x
-
Waz it sounds to me with option 2 you would have a Luton club, but possibly only a Luton captain with the rest of the team being made up from all over the country?
No change then? (although you forgot to mention rest of Europe too)
Average of 34miles from luton! Not that bad! ;)
Mike, yes sorry it seems I mis-read the opening post. Whatever option that maintains as much of individual clubs has my vote.
-
Am I not the only one who likes the way it"s run at the moment?.. I say keep it as it is ;D.
Proud member of team Luton.
Edit: Whatever is decided I will play every game I can. ( Every team just needs a Wazz as a captain with his recruiting skills there would be no problems )
-
Andy O you talk some rubbish , All teams done loads to recruit new players . West mids did very little !
You need to read some of the posts and think lad seriously .
West mids was formed with the champions Walsall and another div 1 team birmingham. We had number cos got a lot of new players to poker etc not established players for apat ! who can play a bit
-
We could try both formats on alternate Sundays. More games for the sponsors.
-
I really like the idea of the draft, so option 2 would be my choice.
Mainly because that way then Scouse can"t moan about West Mids winning again!
Seriously though, a draft will mean all the teams will be completely different and I think the league needs a freshen up. I would go with an idea where APAT staff produce a "ranking list", but this is only available to the captains and then they have a meeting where they choose who they want.
I"ve actually butchered what I mean so here comes the tl;dr
- Option 2
- APAT choose captains
- APAT (Tighty prob) produce a draft list with some rankings for captains
- Captains get together on Skype/at a live APAT event and actually hold a draft
- Not liking the idea where APAT allocate players based on previous form, as not fair on friends.
-
My own preference would be option 2 as it makes the team numbers even. However, I"d suggest that the teams are no longer based on the regions (I know if i was put into the Carlisle team for instance and asked to play against Kent, you would lose a player from the league coz I just plain wouldn"t do it).
-
I"d prefer to keep it as it is but split the W Mids team back into Walsall and Birmingham. Birmingham would have won the league this last season on their own which is totally ironic given the amount of mud they kept slinging at (us) Walsall in previous seasons. I guess the Walsall players protected them instead of simply knocking them out :P I"d love Walsall to be able to put Birmingham back in their place again :)
But that"s not going to happen.
So in proper response I quite like the sound of option 2. The rules regarding membership need some work but a whole new set of APAT friendships would result. No recruitment though (?) which perhaps is a big negative.
Des, if the choice is to be driven by the membership as you say then we need a voting mechanism. Let"s square off the option 1 vs option 2 thing quickly and then we can concentrate on the nitty gritty of the rules of whichever option is chosen?
-
Scotland FTW! ;D
As King Kenny would say......mibbies aye, mibbies naw?
I"d miss Team Glasgow but sure the balancing over larger areas is probably the best way forwar ???
-
Des, if the choice is to be driven by the membership as you say then we need a voting mechanism.
Voting has also been suggested on the cash tour thread. That is fine for some things but, in general, I really don"t think that is the way to get the best decisions. I think the current mechanism whereby the leadership listens to the members" views and takes them into account while making decisions is a more reliable way to get the best outcomes.
-
-
I would rather it didn"t change but If the teams MUST change then it has to be option 1 for me. Glasgow and other teams worked hard last season and brought new players not only to the league but to APAT. Also from playing league games team Glasgow also had its first live event and an xmas night out and regularly meet around glasgows live scene. We made a good team and good friendshipe were forged. Option 2 would take away the opportunity to add to that good team spirit IMO and also what about new players coming in? Would my given team be able to add to the squad from a new sign up or will they be put in a random team?
Defo option 1 to keep the sense of local/regional identity and friendly territorial rivalry. ;)
-
Whilst I fully understand the preference and need to keep things as balanced as possible numberswise, the thing that makes this works is the "Team" thing.
It"s well documented that Luton have been very active and successful, (the 2 don"t necessairly go hand in hand) in recruiting players and this should not be penalised.
Therefore I suggest the following.
Luton, West Midlands, Liverpool and Solent remain, as they are the largest teams and the smaller teams are asked who they would like to "pair up" with, if indeed they want to at all. I have to say a Stockton/Sunderland team, whilst being a fantastic one to be friends with, would be a hell of a force at the bar, let alone the tables!! Just imagine Craig (Johnny Bong) and Stuart (Fatcatstu) together with Katos, ShortstackAl, PhilTC and the Stockton Rock (mind boggles).
My hunch is that we may well find that most players are fairly happy with the team they are in, but this suggestion allows those that are not, to at least give themselves the opportunity to become part of a larger team, without destroying their own.
-
From a personal point of view, option 1 for me. I dont live near any of the cities (and have no friends) so havent participated in the on line league this year. Playing as part of scottish team has much more appeal to me.
-
Either option is good and really glad this is getting done. Havent played online league in a few seasons for reasons mentioned b4, but looking forward to getting back into it this yr!
-
Andy O you talk some rubbish , All teams done loads to recruit new players . West mids did very little !
You need to read some of the posts and think lad seriously .
West mids was formed with the champions Walsall and another div 1 team birmingham. We had number cos got a lot of new players to poker etc not established players for apat ! who can play a bit
Sorry Scouse but at no point have I said that teams haven"t done loads to recruit new players. I know Luton and Liverpool certainly did and it made the league much better. I"m always on the lookout for new players and sure Brian has as the captain too. Not sure why you believe West Mids did very little.
As for established players who can play a bit, well, that comes down to the fact that Brian formed the BCPC, got together a bunch of players who could play a bit and also recruited them into the Walsall team. Hardly a bad thing. I for one joined because of Bri and started playing APATs for the same reason and I know of others in the team who"ve done the same.
Nobody in the Walsall team asked to be joined with Birmingham, in fact given all the grief and moaning it"s caused many of us wish we hadn"t been.
-
Ok guys, the posting regarding what"s happened in the past is counter productive to the objective of this thread so let"s just forget the past and concentrate on moving forward.
Thanks.
-
One further variable which may or may not make a difference.
One of the events being proposed for late in Season 6 is an APAT National League Live, which could potentially bring together the top 8 players in all of the teams, for an end of season community spectacular to be run along the lines of the UK Team Championship (which would be run earlier in the season).
-
-
Ok guys, the posting regarding what"s happened in the past is counter productive to the objective of this thread so let"s just forget the past and concentrate on moving forward.
Thanks.
What has happened in the past should be an important driver to shape the future. How do we learn from our mistakes otherwise?
-
How about disbanding the Team"s with less than 10 regular players (or any chosen number) like the team that I play for which is London who regularly only have 3 players, myself, wise owl, and LGPN. Once these teams are disbanded the players are then free to join a new team of their choice under option 1. The members of the disbanded clubs could have no complaints, as they have not supported their chosen clubs when they had the chance. I reckon this would reduce the amount of clubs by 35-50% and a league of 15 to 20 teams could be formed from those remaining, all of which would have a new influx of players from the disbanded clubs.
-
One further variable which may or may not make a difference.
One of the events being proposed for late in Season 6 is an APAT National League Live, which could potentially bring together the top 8 players in all of the teams, for an end of season community spectacular to be run along the lines of the UK Team Championship (which would be run earlier in the season).
This is a good idea but there are quite a few players that only play APAT online, so you might be excluding some from the series because they wouldn"t or couldn"t play the final.
-
Ok guys, the posting regarding what"s happened in the past is counter productive to the objective of this thread so let"s just forget the past and concentrate on moving forward.
Thanks.
What has happened in the past should be an important driver to shape the future. How do we learn from our mistakes otherwise?
I was talking about the sniping between Liverpool and West Midlands. We"ve got that message now, no need to continue it on. Consider it lodged and non-interest bearing.
-
-
How about disbanding the Team"s with less than 10 regular players (or any chosen number) like the team that I play for which is London who regularly only have 3 players, myself, wise owl, and LGPN. Once these teams are disbanded the players are then free to join a new team of their choice under option 1. The members of the disbanded clubs could have no complaints, as they have not supported their chosen clubs when they had the chance. I reckon this would reduce the amount of clubs by 35-50% and a league of 15 to 20 teams could be formed from those remaining, all of which would have a new influx of players from the disbanded clubs.
Welcome to "Team Luton" Don ;) ;)
-
Ok guys, the posting regarding what"s happened in the past is counter productive to the objective of this thread so let"s just forget the past and concentrate on moving forward.
Thanks.
What has happened in the past should be an important driver to shape the future. How do we learn from our mistakes otherwise?
I was talking about the sniping between Liverpool and West Midlands. We"ve got that message now, no need to continue it on. Consider it lodged and non-interest bearing.
My original post wasn"t meant as a snipe against Liverpool or any other team. I was simply stating my opinion with regards to the direction of the league, as was asked for. If anyone read it as being a snipe against them (or their team) then I apologise, that was certainly not intended.
-
I would also like to suggest a mechanism where all $$$ won in any week is divided amongst the members of the team that play (if small teams) or perhaps score points that week.
Having twice been the only member to cash in the forum event on a team that had agreed to split all winnings, I can tell you that it isn"t much fun when every £100 extra you ladder means another £6.25 for you.
-
-
Option 2 for me,this league thing needs a whole new spin on it.
Good point by Andy! Lets divy up team winnings amongst all team players that play that week.For anything team related the need to eradicate individual gain surely is the way forward.Its a promoted as a team league so lets play by that,even with all the hideous"s that team play entails.
-
Option 2 for me,this league thing needs a whole new spin on it.
Good point by Andy! Lets divy up team winnings amongst all team players that play that week.For anything team related the need to eradicate individual gain surely is the way forward.Its a promoted as a team league so lets play by that,even with all the hideous"s that team play entails.
I kind of agree.... however once a team has no chance of winning, there is no incentive for people to play, and that can spoil the dynamic for the teams still in the running.... the individual element ensures that [most] people will continue to play.
-
Option 2 for me,this league thing needs a whole new spin on it.
Good point by Andy! Lets divy up team winnings amongst all team players that play that week.For anything team related the need to eradicate individual gain surely is the way forward.Its a promoted as a team league so lets play by that,even with all the hideous"s that team play entails.
I kind of agree.... however once a team has no chance of winning, there is no incentive for people to play, and that can spoil the dynamic for the teams still in the running.... the individual element ensures that [most] people will continue to play.
True Steve, unless there"s an end of season final where most teams are guaranteed (by design) to have some sort of chance. I vaguely recall that"s how we did it a few seasons ago. Top few teams played a final. If we do go down that route though I would rather the final should be seeded in some way, rather than top x teams playoff on equal stacks.
-
I would also like to suggest a mechanism where all $$$ won in any week is divided amongst the members of the team that play (if small teams) or perhaps score points that week.
Having twice been the only member to cash in the forum event on a team that had agreed to split all winnings, I can tell you that it isn"t much fun when every £100 extra you ladder means another £6.25 for you.
Good point.
Would it have worked better if it were only shared out amongst point scorers? Or perhaps the top 10 from your team?
Whatever, this is a team game and so the individual prize for winning should not have as great an effect on the dynamic of the weekly game as it has done at times in the past.
You could go as far as scrapping weekly payouts altogether and use the cash to pay each team a share based on their finishing position in the league. In the football Premier League all teams get a "prize" even Birmingham the team that finishes bottom. Or use it to fund the prizepool for a final etc.
-
In the football Premier League all teams get a "prize" even Birmingham the team that finishes bottom.
Yes - at last!
This thread has gone on for far too long without the inevitable football analogy. Thanks for bringing things back to normal Andy.
-
Andy O I will speak to you at next BCPC or next time I see ya and explain why your comments are way off .
-
-
-
-
-
Very good points from you both.
What if we went a step further and said a team could have no more than 10 players, before being required to add a Team B to the lowest division. But the Team Captain retains the right to select from his A or B (etc) selections for the National League Live event, thereby incentivising players in lower leagues to continue performing? Similarly if we ran 2 or 3 Leagues per season there would be ample opportunity to promote players to the A squad, or demote to the B squad.
More food for thought....
My initial thoughts were to allow Clubs utilise their squads as they see fit, they could decide to nominate teams A and B for the entire season or for each individual matchday. That includes built in short or long term incentives to either play well and nail down an A team place for the very next matchday or for next season but allowing each Club to decide whichever route suits them best. That may be problematic depending on the individual elements of the League but the general idea was to leave scope for Clubs to manouvre tactically which could enhance team spirit and identity but also leave room for recruiting to still be beneficial to Clubs (potential host platforms will like that too).
The 10 player team size will result in more Teams and enable more Divisions but it also imposes change on more Clubs and for the larger Clubs, considerably more change. That has to be measured against the relative benefits of moving to 10 player Teams over the 20 player Team format.
-
-
Very good points from you both.
What if we went a step further and said a team could have no more than 10 players, before being required to add a Team B to the lowest division. But the Team Captain retains the right to select from his A or B (etc) selections for the National League Live event, thereby incentivising players in lower leagues to continue performing? Similarly if we ran 2 or 3 Leagues per season there would be ample opportunity to promote players to the A squad, or demote to the B squad.
More food for thought....
My initial thoughts were to allow Clubs utilise their squads as they see fit, they could decide to nominate teams A and B for the entire season or for each individual matchday. That includes built in short or long term incentives to either play well and nail down an A team place for the very next matchday or for next season but allowing each Club to decide whichever route suits them best. That may be problematic depending on the individual elements of the League but the general idea was to leave scope for Clubs to manouvre tactically which could enhance team spirit and identity but also leave room for recruiting to still be beneficial to Clubs (potential host platforms will like that too).
The 10 player team size will result in more Teams and enable more Divisions but it also imposes change on more Clubs and for the larger Clubs, considerably more change. That has to be measured against the relative benefits of moving to 10 player Teams over the 20 player Team format.
Agree in principle Brendan. I just think we should ensure we don"t end up in a situation where the League becomes very difficult to manage from an admin and communication point of view, ie players playing in the wrong games, or too many playing etc.
-
Are my 3 options all non-starters Des?
-
-
Agree in principle Brendan. I just think we should ensure we don"t end up in a situation where the League becomes very difficult to manage from an admin and communication point of view, ie players playing in the wrong games, or too many playing etc.
Just thinking out loud here....
It"s matchday 1, Clubs must nominate their 10/20 player Teams prior to start of game ( 1hr, 30mins, 5mins, whatever suits best for admin purposes) That is final and only those 10/20 nominated players can score points for that Team.
If a player enters the wrong game his error will leave his Team short a player and will only impinge on the Team of the player making the error, as it should. Equally only those nominated for a particular match will score towards the Teams total.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SrHVfDAYHg8/TjPAFT3S8GI/AAAAAAAABjQ/HrBbWZ7cCMg/s1600/simples.jpg)
-
Agree in principle Brendan. I just think we should ensure we don"t end up in a situation where the League becomes very difficult to manage from an admin and communication point of view, ie players playing in the wrong games, or too many playing etc.
Just thinking out loud here....
It"s matchday 1, Clubs must nominate their 10/20 player Teams prior to start of game ( 1hr, 30mins, 5mins, whatever suits best for admin purposes) That is final and only those 10/20 nominated players can score points for that Team.
If a player enters the wrong game his error will leave his Team short a player and will only impinge on the Team of the player making the error, as it should. Equally only those nominated for a particular match will score towards the Teams total.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-SrHVfDAYHg8/TjPAFT3S8GI/AAAAAAAABjQ/HrBbWZ7cCMg/s1600/simples.jpg)
lol, simples indeed. If only! ::)
Do the team sheets get published? Would APAT be required to check each MTT, or is it self policed by the players?
-
lol, simples indeed. If only! ::)
Do the team sheets get published? Would APAT be required to check each MTT, or is it self policed by the players?
Team line-ups could be posted on the forum prior to game starting, as it stands somebody is responsible for collating Team scores, only difference is that person will now collect scores only for the players nominated in the pre game forum post. This may actually make the scoring process simpler.
-
Crikey, that made for some interesting reading!
Whilst I appreciate my comments are going to be somewhat, I imagine, "predictable" as I play for one of, if not the largest team here goes...
Firstly, like others, I absolutely applaud APAT's efforts to shake things up and the constant effort to try and make things work for everyone. I am sure it"s an impossible job to keep everyone happy but the work that goes into trying to achieve this is really appreciated.
I agree with those that have said they like the current format. I was introduced to APAT by a family member and then once I had posted, approached by Waz who asked if I would join the team. From this, I made my first live event....and the rest....
This team "camaraderie" is, for me, one of if not the biggest appeal of APAT. The Luton home game in October was great and to have that "team" feel DOES make a difference.
I know there are teams that have tried endlessly to recruit and just haven"t been able to, but I do feel that the tireless efforts of those who HAVE managed to actively recruit over the past few seasons are somewhat sidelined in favour of teams that have not been able to.
I think the answer has to be a combination of all the suggestions....I like the idea of keeping "regional" teams but capping the number...
What if we went a step further and said a team could have no more than 10 players, before being required to add a Team B to the lowest division. <----this definitely sounds like a winner. And for all those with less than 10 registered/regular players...they could have the option of "teaming up" with another team that could subsequently split.
I think it would be a shame to lose the regional/team feel, however, like most I will play all the league games that I can regardless of the decision made
-
as was said in the last few posts i was thinking the exact same thing to split some of the larger teams into A B C teams with in the larger team (10 per sub team) of which i think it would be left up to the captain to decide on who goes into which team. i think that evens up the the playing field alot.
as to the divisons and to teams promotions/demotion i think it should be kept as is, with another idea coming from reading the last few posts in reguards to spliting the teams into A B C teams although it should be left up to the captain to decide who goes into what team at the start of the league then we use the way what team gets promoted/demoted between div 1 and 2 to decide who stays in what sub team which will depend on how many points they score or don"t score.
i think the league can be a bit long so could be split into two lots of ten with the prizes being give or take the same as season five.
-
Andy O I will speak to you at next BCPC or next time I see ya and explain why your comments are way off .
No probs mate. Happy to chat about it any time. I don"t believe my comments were way off at all, and if i"m honest believe some of yours were so more than happy to talk about it. Comments are often misconstrued on forums and as i"ve said if i offended anyone then my apologies but will happily talk to anyone about it. If we still disagree after chatting so be it but either way, mines a Fosters. :)
-
wow , some intersesting reading there , and loads of food for thought.
From my perspective as Glasgows last Captain , i feel that option 1 if any would be prefered as its the sense of team and region/town that has helped us recruit throughout the season I think we only had 2 or 3 reg players at the end of season 4 , especially around the scottish live weekend, so a scottish team would help us retain that sense of playing for the team , have already had requests from other scottish teams to join Glasgow already.
As Paul and Grant had said , we have had a couple of local events , and that coupled with the facebook page we have made some good friends throughout the team , and i feel that a random or picked option 2 we would lose that sense of TEAM.
The structure in my opinion should not be changed 2 divisions gives a goal for the teams in Div 2 as it did for us this year and after all the hard work this year would like to see if Glasgow/scotland could take on the mighty West Midlands in Div 1 so would hate to see it put into 1 division ok for us as we had some added value seats , but what about the other 3 teams that were promoted , they fought hard for the promotion and i would think they would like the same opportunity.
The option of an A B and C team would maybe be an option to mix things up a bit.
That is my tupence worth anyway , and will no doubt try and play as manay games as i can regardless of whats decided , and support whoever my successor may be.
-
hmmm
the team a b c thing is interesting but I"m not convinced that captains moving players around various teams would work. if i"ve played in all 3 teams at various stages in the season in perhaps different divisions what prizes am i entitled to? If it is to go on overall points, any points gained in div 2 could be seen as worth less than those gained in div 1 if say theres less teams in div 2 + weaker players? I can see some bitter internal team arguements over $$$/added value if it isn"t clear cut and also possible fallouts with captains. Do the captains want so much resposibility? Interesting idea but one of the toughest logistically to manage in a number of ways.
Fixed multiple teams could work but who wants to be in a less than full C team with by definition other weak/new players? Spreading players across team a b c using some form of ranking could work. Don"t fancy being the rankings compiler though.
-
How about disbanding the Team"s with less than 10 regular players (or any chosen number) like the team that I play for which is London who regularly only have 3 players, myself, wise owl, and LGPN. Once these teams are disbanded the players are then free to join a new team of their choice under option 1. The members of the disbanded clubs could have no complaints, as they have not supported their chosen clubs when they had the chance. I reckon this would reduce the amount of clubs by 35-50% and a league of 15 to 20 teams could be formed from those remaining, all of which would have a new influx of players from the disbanded clubs.
Welcome to "Team Luton" Don ;) ;)
24 minutes???? Waz will be turning in his captaincy grave!
-
hmmm
the team a b c thing is interesting but I"m not convinced that captains moving players around various teams would work. if i"ve played in all 3 teams at various stages in the season in perhaps different divisions what prizes am i entitled to? If it is to go on overall points, any points gained in div 2 could be seen as worth less than those gained in div 1 if say theres less teams in div 2 + weaker players? I can see some bitter internal team arguements over $$$/added value if it isn"t clear cut and also possible fallouts with captains. Do the captains want so much resposibility? Interesting idea but one of the toughest logistically to manage in a number of ways.
Fixed multiple teams could work but who wants to be in a less than full C team with by definition other weak/new players? Spreading players across team a b c using some form of ranking could work. Don"t fancy being the rankings compiler though.
Moving players within the season would be a decision for the Club but if it added more complication than benefit then we could stick with fixed teams for the entire season. Its one of the reasons why I prefer 20 player teams, I suspect that would be cleaner, less problematic.
Just to Add, I suspect it is unlikely that a top scoring player would be moved from A to B and most likely would move the other direction but this would be a club decision and would have to be agreed locally among players and managers who you would expect to be fully aware of the consequences for individuals involved.
In the team environment I would doubt agreement could be reached on any move that seriously disadvantaged a member. Maybe we could look at how the added value is handled and align this more inline with the team aspect.
-
Ok, had some thoughts:
- The problem with ANY league is the drop-off in interest over the course of the season. You can either combat this by swinging a large carrot for individual prizes, or by having a short sharp league.
- I think it would be disappointing to lose the team element that has been built up over the course of the last few years.
- Having a "selection" for each league game puts a massive responsibility on the captains. What do they do if someone reg"s late? When"s the deadline. What is the punishment if they don"t post a player list - loss of team points? Hardly fair on the team members.
My proposal:
- Retain the existing teams, or perhaps, chop some of the lesser supported teams, but preferably retain as many teams as feasibly possible.
- Drop the divisions.
- Retain the $10 buy-in, 75% of the prizepool to play for, and the other 25% goes towards the final.
- At an average of 120 runners per matchday, over 20 matchdays this would generate $6k for the final. Pop a bit of added value here too?
Mechanics:
- Assuming the season is ~12 months long, play 5 mini-leagues of 4 matchdays each. At the end of the league, tot up the points and allocate to the top 25% of teams (so currently the top 5 teams would get 5, 4, 3, 2, 1). Include a similar restriction as the current format (only top 6 players or whatever can score team points).
- Reset the team points after each league
- At the end of the season, any team that has scored a point qualifies for the final.
- Team points obtain relate to starting stack size. 1 point gets you 5,000 chips, each additional point gives each team member an additional 500 chips.
- Captain then picks x players from his team to compete in said final - this could be online or live and suitably deepstacked. Team member has to have played in a certain number of games. To make it simple it should probably be the top 4 points scorers.
Individual league runs through the whole season and is not reset at any point. Pay a large number of points positions (say top 40) - it looks nice to a casual player if they"re scoring a few points and on a leaderboard.
Individual winner gets a nice bit of added value. Next 10 players in the individual list play a SNG for some more (WCOAP passport perhaps) and an MTT for the same for those who"ve played 75% of the matchdays.
As long as individuals are suitably incentivised then even if the team is fairing badly there should be enough encouragement to play (just rewarding the individual winner isn"t enough imo. 1 player out of hundreds isn"t going to get many people chasing the glory).
The short leagues mean APAT can remove a team mid-way through the season and reallocate numbers if one team is only getting one or two runners.
Short leagues will always give the clubs something to aim for. Just one point to get to the final, easier to sell for Captains trying to get people to play "Just one short push for 4 weeks and we can lock up a final place - only need to come top 5 too" etc. Teams who"ve already qualified have the incentive to get more chips for the final and keep other teams out of the points positions.
Big clubs will obviously have the advantage and get to the final with more chips, but they won"t have an overwhelming advantage.
Finally, and one of the biggest points imo - Make the League visible, get some articles on the front page, a link to the standings perhaps. Make it clear to visitors that there is a league. Champion the winners, give them some exposure. This is going to be the starting point at APAT for a lot of people - make them feel good!
-
How about disbanding the Team"s with less than 10 regular players (or any chosen number) like the team that I play for which is London who regularly only have 3 players, myself, wise owl, and LGPN. Once these teams are disbanded the players are then free to join a new team of their choice under option 1. The members of the disbanded clubs could have no complaints, as they have not supported their chosen clubs when they had the chance. I reckon this would reduce the amount of clubs by 35-50% and a league of 15 to 20 teams could be formed from those remaining, all of which would have a new influx of players from the disbanded clubs.
Welcome to "Team Luton" Don ;) ;)
24 minutes???? Waz will be turning in his captaincy grave!
....And the training sessions went so well. Oh well back to the drawing board
:-[
-
Ok, had some thoughts:
- The problem with ANY league is the drop-off in interest over the course of the season. You can either combat this by swinging a large carrot for individual prizes, or by having a short sharp league.
- I think it would be disappointing to lose the team element that has been built up over the course of the last few years.
- Having a "selection" for each league game puts a massive responsibility on the captains. What do they do if someone reg"s late? When"s the deadline. What is the punishment if they don"t post a player list - loss of team points? Hardly fair on the team members.
My proposal:
- Retain the existing teams, or perhaps, chop some of the lesser supported teams, but preferably retain as many teams as feasibly possible.
- Drop the divisions.
- Retain the $10 buy-in, 75% of the prizepool to play for, and the other 25% goes towards the final.
- At an average of 120 runners per matchday, over 20 matchdays this would generate $6k for the final. Pop a bit of added value here too?
Mechanics:
- Assuming the season is ~12 months long, play 5 mini-leagues of 4 matchdays each. At the end of the league, tot up the points and allocate to the top 25% of teams (so currently the top 5 teams would get 5, 4, 3, 2, 1). Include a similar restriction as the current format (only top 6 players or whatever can score team points).
- Reset the team points after each league
- At the end of the season, any team that has scored a point qualifies for the final.
- Team points obtain relate to starting stack size. 1 point gets you 5,000 chips, each additional point gives each team member an additional 500 chips.
- Captain then picks x players from his team to compete in said final - this could be online or live and suitably deepstacked. Team member has to have played in a certain number of games. To make it simple it should probably be the top 4 points scorers.
Individual league runs through the whole season and is not reset at any point. Pay a large number of points positions (say top 40) - it looks nice to a casual player if they"re scoring a few points and on a leaderboard.
Individual winner gets a nice bit of added value. Next 10 players in the individual list play a SNG for some more (WCOAP passport perhaps) and an MTT for the same for those who"ve played 75% of the matchdays.
As long as individuals are suitably incentivised then even if the team is fairing badly there should be enough encouragement to play (just rewarding the individual winner isn"t enough imo. 1 player out of hundreds isn"t going to get many people chasing the glory).
The short leagues mean APAT can remove a team mid-way through the season and reallocate numbers if one team is only getting one or two runners.
Short leagues will always give the clubs something to aim for. Just one point to get to the final, easier to sell for Captains trying to get people to play "Just one short push for 4 weeks and we can lock up a final place - only need to come top 5 too" etc. Teams who"ve already qualified have the incentive to get more chips for the final and keep other teams out of the points positions.
Big clubs will obviously have the advantage and get to the final with more chips, but they won"t have an overwhelming advantage.
Finally, and one of the biggest points imo - Make the League visible, get some articles on the front page, a link to the standings perhaps. Make it clear to visitors that there is a league. Champion the winners, give them some exposure. This is going to be the starting point at APAT for a lot of people - make them feel good!
Great post!
My thoughts;
I agree team identity is a must.
The games need to be easily managed.
Clubs should not be penalised too heavily for recruiting well. Though there needs to be incentives to carry on playing when your team can no longer win league.
I personally do not think winnings should be split amongst all team members. Doing so a player could come bottom every week (contribute nothing in points) yet be a member of the winning team and be in profit. Whereas a good player in a weak team would lose an incentive to play.
An incentive to keep playing would be to have a live final where all teams are invited and chip stacks are determined by results and players qualify via points gained for their team and not picked by the captain.
-
I really hope APAT think very carefully before they consider making some of the possible changes.
It seems to me that many people want to make the strong (in numbers) teams weaker, but surely a far more progressive approach is to try and make the weak teams stronger. The simplest way to do this would the basic option 1 scenario to create "regions" that are roughly equal in numbers. It doesn"t have to be exact - West Midlands demonstrated that the team with the most runners is not guaranteed a win, but equally a team of six is not viable against a team of 22. Player recruitment needs to be easy and encouraged otherwise eventually what is underneath will whither and die. Why on earth do people want a race to the bottom?
A B and C teams with restricted numbers (say 10 a side) is a horrible idea in my book. It creates exactly the situation you are trying to avoid - last seasons team of 14 becomes a 10 and 4 with no chance - a team of 22 becomes two tens, two get f**ked off and leave and new recruitment is impossible because until you"ve got 7 or 8 it"s not worth bothering. Whilst there are very few mugs in APAT I wouldn"t be surprised if West Mids saw some "dead money" benefit in some of the larger teams.
The individual element needs to remain and possibly increase as I said before, that would create an interesting dynamic between the needs of the individual and that of the team. If it is decided to rip up what"s gone before and start completely afresh will APAT consider running an individual online league at a reasonable buy-in to run alongside the new "team" game?
-
How about disbanding the Team"s with less than 10 regular players (or any chosen number) like the team that I play for which is London who regularly only have 3 players, myself, wise owl, and LGPN. Once these teams are disbanded the players are then free to join a new team of their choice under option 1. The members of the disbanded clubs could have no complaints, as they have not supported their chosen clubs when they had the chance. I reckon this would reduce the amount of clubs by 35-50% and a league of 15 to 20 teams could be formed from those remaining, all of which would have a new influx of players from the disbanded clubs.
Welcome to "Team Luton" Don ;) ;)
24 minutes???? Waz will be turning in his captaincy grave!
....And the training sessions went so well. Oh well back to the drawing board
:-[
Sorry Waz, I know I was a little slow off the blocks with this one, but socks are being pulled up as I type :D
-
Let's first of all recognise that we will naturally look at any proposed change from our current position and tend to rationalise from essentially a defensive position. I was tempted to build another long multi-quote post countering the various opinions and requests ;D ;D ;D but that would likely come across as personal and further entrench some of the many well minded contributors in this a quintessentially Apat healthy discussion.
Is it safe to say that we all agree some change is needed, that only small change is necessary and since it's an Apat event we needn't worry that this is our only chance to effect change, sure we are a perpetually evolving community so no need to rush into drastic change.
Do we agree that when a team's numerical disadvantage passes the ~2/1 tipping point it becomes virtually insurmountable? Is this the priority area that needs addressing so as to maintain an equitable yet competitive format?
To this point we have had varied opinions and a good example of the natural tendency for self preservation is the much asserted opinion that we should preserve the bigger teams identity by closing the small teams and thus erasing their equally valued identity. Do we have to dissolve the teams that cannot currently compete? Sure some would welcome it in the absence of an alternative but would that be fair?
Various parties can view the pros and cons of the proposals and let's be honest, there are always going to be cons no matter how hard we try or how clever we are about it.
All that said; why not try out a small change for season 6..
Teams of 20
Multiple teams per Club permissible
A, B & C Teams nominated for the entire Season
- Points system remains
- Big teams retain identity
- Small teams retain identity
- Teams that want to dissolve can move to where suits them best
- Numerical advantage redressed yet still a beneficial factor
- Competing is attainable and sustainable for teams of 10
- Provides more scope for an expanded league
We can and will then evalute and further tweak at seasons end in the Season 7 discussion thread.
-
If it is not broken, then why try and fix it?
-
My concern with A B C"s teams is that it is alot for Captains to do and to manage. And we"ve already seen some clubs don"t have a "visable" captain to levels of other clubs.
With the number of current captains stepping down, I"m not sure this format will encourage new captains??
With APAT being as it is; an evolving growing community, I also don"t like the idea of restriction of numbers in teams.
It is already a level playing field as everyone has access to everyone that is interested in playing online poker. And I believe the "big clubs" already had there wings clipped with the introduction (and rightly so) of the "top 4 only score rule. This negates the numbers count situ (WM proved this in Div 1) to a degree.
The likes of Glasgow, Sunderland, Carlisle and Luton, have had huge increases in numbers to the clubs and thus to APAT as a whole and have added to the APAT community, surely this is the way forward.
So I believe the focus should be on growing the "smaller clubs" not clipping the big clubs. By growing them APAT grows the league grows - isn"t that what it is all about?
And going forward into S7 & S8 (annoucement soon as I understand :P) couldn"t we go back to the original idea of the clubs playing at the local live events as in the earlier seasons. It didn"t work so well that time around, but wow how the league has grown since?
-
My concern with A B C"s teams is that it is alot for Captains to do and to manage. And we"ve already seen some clubs don"t have a "visable" captain to levels of other clubs.
With the number of current captains stepping down, I"m not sure this format will encourage new captains??
With APAT being as it is; an evolving growing community, I also don"t like the idea of restriction of numbers in teams.
It is already a level playing field as everyone has access to everyone that is interested in playing online poker. And I believe the "big clubs" already had there wings clipped with the introduction (and rightly so) of the "top 4 only score rule. This negates the numbers count situ (WM proved this in Div 1) to a degree.
The likes of Glasgow, Sunderland, Carlisle and Luton, have had huge increases in numbers to the clubs and thus to APAT as a whole and have added to the APAT community, surely this is the way forward.
So I believe the focus should be on growing the "smaller clubs" not clipping the big clubs. By growing them APAT grows the league grows - isn"t that what it is all about?
And going forward into S7 & S8 (annoucement soon as I understand :P) couldn"t we go back to the original idea of the clubs playing at the local live events as in the earlier seasons. It didn"t work so well that time around, but wow how the league has grown since?
If it is not broken, then why try and fix it?
I give up
-
If it is not broken, then why try and fix it?
LOL, in principle I agree, but there are a lot of improvements that can be made, and many of the ideas expressed are very good, particularly the A and B team scenario espoused by Brendan.
Waz the local live games were great, and was my first introduction to live poker, and the G in Manchester was packed for these events, but TBH I am pretty sure they have been consigned to history.
-
My concern with A B C"s teams is that it is alot for Captains to do and to manage. And we"ve already seen some clubs don"t have a "visable" captain to levels of other clubs.
With the number of current captains stepping down, I"m not sure this format will encourage new captains??
With APAT being as it is; an evolving growing community, I also don"t like the idea of restriction of numbers in teams.
It is already a level playing field as everyone has access to everyone that is interested in playing online poker. And I believe the "big clubs" already had there wings clipped with the introduction (and rightly so) of the "top 4 only score rule. This negates the numbers count situ (WM proved this in Div 1) to a degree.
The likes of Glasgow, Sunderland, Carlisle and Luton, have had huge increases in numbers to the clubs and thus to APAT as a whole and have added to the APAT community, surely this is the way forward.
So I believe the focus should be on growing the "smaller clubs" not clipping the big clubs. By growing them APAT grow
the league grows - isn"t that what it is all about?
And going forward into S7 & S8 (annoucement soon as I understand :P) couldn"t we go back to the original idea of the clubs playing at the local live events as in the earlier seasons. It didn"t work so well that time around, but wow how the league has grown since?
If it is not broken, then why try and fix it?
I give up
Please don"t feel like that!!
I wasn"t meaning to be negative, the complete opposite, and it wasn"t a diss about your ideas, which Ardmore than workable, I was just expressing my own thoughts.
-
My concern with A B C"s teams is that it is alot for Captains to do and to manage. And we"ve already seen some clubs don"t have a "visable" captain to levels of other clubs.
With the number of current captains stepping down, I"m not sure this format will encourage new captains??
With APAT being as it is; an evolving growing community, I also don"t like the idea of restriction of numbers in teams.
It is already a level playing field as everyone has access to everyone that is interested in playing online poker. And I believe the "big clubs" already had there wings clipped with the introduction (and rightly so) of the "top 4 only score rule. This negates the numbers count situ (WM proved this in Div 1) to a degree.
The likes of Glasgow, Sunderland, Carlisle and Luton, have had huge increases in numbers to the clubs and thus to APAT as a whole and have added to the APAT community, surely this is the way forward.
So I believe the focus should be on growing the "smaller clubs" not clipping the big clubs. By growing them APAT grow
the league grows - isn"t that what it is all about?
And going forward into S7 & S8 (annoucement soon as I understand :P) couldn"t we go back to the original idea of the clubs playing at the local live events as in the earlier seasons. It didn"t work so well that time around, but wow how the league has grown since?
If it is not broken, then why try and fix it?
I give up
Please don"t feel like that!!
I wasn"t meaning to be negative, the complete opposite, and it wasn"t a diss about your ideas, which Ardmore than workable, I was just expressing my own thoughts.
Its not that you are being negative, but we can"t keep going round in circles. Basically and by varying degrees, those affiliated to bigger teams see no need for change while those attached to the smaller clubs clamour for it.
as far as Foggy"s comment, it is totally f**king deluded to state that "it"s not broken"
More than 50% of teams scored 0 points.
Captains are resigning in their droves.
Player retention is abysmal despite trojan efforts at recruiting.
-
If it is not broken, then why try and fix it?
I agree, keep it as it is. I would go for option one if we had to as i dont mind changing Notts to East Midlands. Tbh though ive got more players already for next season as ive been on a big recruitment drive so we are ready to give it a go again after just avoiding relegation by the skin of our teeth lol.
-
If it is not broken, then why try and fix it?
I agree, keep it as it is. I would go for option one if we had to as i dont mind changing Notts to East Midlands. Tbh though ive got more players already for next season as ive been on a big recruitment drive so we are ready to give it a go again after just avoiding relegation by the skin of our teeth lol.
Could a mod please delete this post before Brendan sees it. ;)
-
Only just caught up with this thread.....so gotta put my size tens into it.
Firstly.....Scouse, if you think I did no recruiting for the West Midlands last season, then you are wrong. Also, Captaining a team is about getting your players to play each week and not just about getting them to sign up.
Secondly, please keep the points system as-is, although stipulating a pro-rata payout in relation to points gained for maybe the top 10 players in the winning team would be a good move.
Finally, if you are going to move away from the "normal" means of recruitment towards a draft, then as the NFL was mentioned, base the draft on the NFL.
1. Get everyone who is interested in playing to sign up on here
2. Decide on the draft order
3. Nominate team Captains
4. Get each Captain to CHOOSE 15 players from the list
5. Once each team has 15 players, all of the others become "Free-Agents" who are able to sign for any team that they wish.
If the draft becomes an allocation, then that IMO would be a load of......well....you know. (And WOULDN"T be a draft anyway!)
-
my 2cents worth fwiw (about 2 cents)
I play these games on an occasional basis and my only motivation for playing is because I"m playing for Stockton, my local team. I know and love the past and new captains and know and love most of the rest of the Stockton team.
If the teams are amalgamated into bigger areas, or just become "chosen" then I doubt I"d ever give up my Sunday evenings for this.
-
Im in favour of the online competition following the lines of recent team competitions, with the online games working towards a grand live final.
So for APAT it would be teams of a certain number ( say 6 or 4 ). People could form teams with whoever they like, maybe regional based if they like or not, and a section of the forum could be used to attract players to complete teams or for players to find a team.
There are then a series of games that players play and points are gained towards a live final. These points determine the starting stack at the live final.
I think this format encourages both participation and recruitment, as people will play right through to the live final and also new players will be encouraged to join to complete teams. It means that people can stick with some of the players in their team previously and of course critically it ensures teams are equal in size. It would of course also create a great live weekend too !
-
Just seen this thread......................good luck in sorting out an impossible task ???
No interest in the Draft idea at all.
-
Just seen this thread......................good luck in sorting out an impossible task ???
No interest in the Draft idea at all.
Trust you to sit on the fence ;) ;)
-
what site this going to be played on. if its DTD online think i will just sit back and watch the post about the site lol