Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => Online Archive => Online Poker => National Online League => Topic started by: SwissToni on April 30, 2012, 19:12:48 PM
-
At the end of the tournament Wales had beaten Scotland by 1 point and therefore closed the gap from Scotland to 3 points overall. Having looked at the result it appears that some "unregistered" player finished 22nd meaning that the 23rd and 24th that Scotland got becomes 22nd and 23rd an means the players earn 4 points between them rather than 2. This obviously means Wales actually end up losing to Scotland by 1 point and actually increasing our overall deficit to 5 points.
As one of my players quite rightly said, people"s positions should be people"s positions. While playing, players make decisions based on how many players are left, point jumps/bubbles, and also (on the final table) how many points their opponent"s teams have already scored. If an unregistered player finishes 3rd and scoops $250 would that money be passed on to the 4th place finisher along with their points? No. Forgive the essay but I (along with a number of my team) feel particularly hard done by.
I posted this on the Facebook page and was asked (I assume by Des) to post it on the forum so the guys can look into it.
Regards
Henry
-
Haven"t yet got close enough to the points for this to be an issue for me, but in my opinion, Henry"s points are entirely valid. Decisions points crop up in the tourney that have substantial influence on decisions - surely we can"t have players finishing positions changing after the event.
Those unregistered players have occupied an important points scoring position - those points should just be null and void, not allocated to someone else, imo.
-
I think it was Rich that suggested you post it Henry, but it"s very valid feedback.
My own thoughts are that the scoring was as per the league rules at the start of the season, so should stand in this instance - however it is something APAT could address for the next league if players are in agreement.
We would welcome views.
-
I requested you post Henry, easier to look into it on here than on a facebook comments box.
Des has seen it as you can see, we"ll discuss.
All views welcome
-
Haven"t yet got close enough to the points for this to be an issue for me, but in my opinion, Henry"s points are entirely valid. Decisions points crop up in the tourney that have substantial influence on decisions - surely we can"t have players finishing positions changing after the event.
Those unregistered players have occupied an important points scoring position - those points should just be null and void, not allocation to someone else, imo.
These are my feelings precisely. I understand where you are coming from Des but I just think it is hugely unfair for player"s finishing positions to change after the event in which players have had to make decisions based on information they assume to be accurate
-
Also these unregistered players will have won pots from other players AND knocked players out too. Are players knocked out by him to be reinstated in the tournament? Of course not. I"m aware that"s a silly question but it"s simply to make a point. Either we have to assume the unregistered player didn"t play, in which case points can be reallocated along with monetary prizes and chips (obv can"t happen) OR we have to treat them as having participated and simply void their finishing position and take their chips/money/points out of the game. I don"t feel it"s fair to mix and match
-
Haven"t yet got close enough to the points for this to be an issue for me, but in my opinion, Henry"s points are entirely valid. Decisions points crop up in the tourney that have substantial influence on decisions - surely we can"t have players finishing positions changing after the event.
Those unregistered players have occupied an important points scoring position - those points should just be null and void, not allocation to someone else, imo.
These are my feelings precisely. I understand where you are coming from Des but I just think it is hugely unfair for player"s finishing positions to change after the event in which players have had to make decisions based on information they assume to be accurate
I"ll certainly have a look into it with the regional controllers to ensure that the final result of match 8 was published completely in line with the rules of the league.
If that"s the case then APAT would not change rules mid season as it would bring the whole league into disrepute. As an example we would need to address points scoring where unregistered players finished in the top 27 at every match this season.
-
Haven"t yet got close enough to the points for this to be an issue for me, but in my opinion, Henry"s points are entirely valid. Decisions points crop up in the tourney that have substantial influence on decisions - surely we can"t have players finishing positions changing after the event.
Those unregistered players have occupied an important points scoring position - those points should just be null and void, not allocation to someone else, imo.
These are my feelings precisely. I understand where you are coming from Des but I just think it is hugely unfair for player"s finishing positions to change after the event in which players have had to make decisions based on information they assume to be accurate
I"ll certainly have a look into it with the regional controllers to ensure that the final result of match 8 was published completely in line with the rules of the league.
If that"s the case then APAT would not change rules mid season as it would bring the whole league into disrepute. As an example we would need to address points scoring where unregistered players finished in the top 27 at every match this season.
I can understand why changing rules mid season would be a poor idea but surely there has to be an element of discression in the event of an obviously poor rule? I doubt there would be anyone involved in the league who would dissagree that this is a poor rule. Even those in Team Scotland would struggle to logically back this rule I feel.
Perhaps there is room for a vote on the rule? Also to change previous results would be a matter of 5 minutes as I doubt this has happened more than 3 times so far.
-
Awwwwwww, can"t we just change the rules mid season ?
Even if it"s just to make up for the lost traffic on the site in the past month ;)
-
Unfortunately the rules set out only make the following point regards players unregistered for a region
3 - There is no limit to how many players can represent each region in a match. However, players will be required to register for a region prior to the start of a match. Non registered players will be disqualified from scoring points in a match.
Lots of valid points ST, however I believe that a similar scenario occured in matchday 6 and same decision was taken. Everyone accepted it then and I believe team captains should have been more careful from then.
Whilst I participate for the team that benefitted, am sure everyone will know I say this with the greatest of integrity, had my team been on the wrong end of this I would honestly respect the decision from the APAT HQ.
Something to chew over for next season though.
Geo
-
Even though you are in Team Scotland you can see quite how poor the rule is though?
Also that rule says nothing whatsoever about other players being moved up. Technically.
-
Even though you are in Team Scotland you can see quite how poor the rule is though?
Also that rule says nothing whatsoever about other players being moved up. Technically.
I do agree sir, however as stated, the precedent was set on matchday 6 and wasn"t challenged at that time therefore my thoughts were that it was the accepted rule.
Geo
-
Even though you are in Team Scotland you can see quite how poor the rule is though?
Also that rule says nothing whatsoever about other players being moved up. Technically.
Henry - I believe it"s quite normal for any contestant to be bumped up in position should another get disqualified. Your feedback is good, however I wouldn"t dilute it by pushing too hard!
-
Even though you are in Team Scotland you can see quite how poor the rule is though?
Also that rule says nothing whatsoever about other players being moved up. Technically.
Henry - I believe it"s quite normal for any contestant to be bumped up in position should another get disqualified. Your feedback is good, however I wouldn"t dilute it by pushing too hard!
Lol good feedback can"t be diluted. It stands on its own merit :)
-
Just to clarify, the way the rule has been interpreted is the way it was meant when it was first written last season.
However, neither I nor any of the organisers had ever looked at it from the angle that Henry has, and to be honest, it does make a difference to the dynamic of the game around the points levels.
Impossible to change the rules halfway through, but one that I would hope would be looked at before the next league.
-
Even though you are in Team Scotland you can see quite how poor the rule is though?
Also that rule says nothing whatsoever about other players being moved up. Technically.
Henry - I believe it"s quite normal for any contestant to be bumped up in position should another get disqualified. Your feedback is good, however I wouldn"t dilute it by pushing too hard!
Lol good feedback can"t be diluted. It stands on its own merit :)
Technically ;)
-
Just to clarify, the way the rule has been interpreted is the way it was meant when it was first written last season.
However, neither I nor any of the organisers had ever looked at it from the angle that Henry has, and to be honest, it does make a difference to the dynamic of the game around the points levels.
Impossible to change the rules halfway through, but one that I would hope would be looked at before the next league.
Personally, this is my view also.
-
As opinions have been requested, my view is that it is an entirely sensible rule. Interlopers are ignored and points are allocated to the highest-finishing 27 players who belong to teams. This is how it has been for several seasons and makes total sense to me. Suppose 12 non-registered players finished in the top 27 - should only 15 players receive points? It"s not hard to imagine the complaints if outsiders caused a team to lose crucial points in the last game of the season. I can"t see that keeping a standard number of points-scorers causes a problem, but I can see it being an issue if non-registered players were allowed to disrupt the game to the extent proposed.
-
Just noticed player in 26th, Crisasharp, is noted as unregiestered. Defo should be EoE, registered before start of season (And is the Captain"s hubby!!)
-
Just noticed player in 26th, Crisasharp, is noted as unregiestered. Defo should be EoE, registered before start of season (And is the Captain"s hubby!!)
Thanks for letting us know Jo - I will ask Ian to update the match result with hubby"s score included!
-
Scotland, Wales, I think it is time that we balanced the teams
Foggy for captain of ENGLAND
-
I came 15th this time and scored 7 points for myself but when I look on the individual leader board I am not even on it!! No point playing these things if we do not even get what we earn is their?
It clearly says at the top Standings after Week 7 - week 8 is not on there yet.
For whats it"s worth whilst I agree with Henry APAT definitely can"t change the rules so we just have to accept it. It"s not like Wales are not going to win anyway so it doesn"t matter really.
Scotland, Wales, I think it is time that we balanced the teams
I totally agree here, the two teams seem too strong, they always do well. This might have something to do with the excellent recruitment work done by the captains (Henry especially, credit where it is due) but players are more likely to bother playing for a team called Wales or Scotland than a team called "East of England" for example. The player base for Wales is largely from Cardiff and most never played for the old Cardiff club (again this is in no small part down to Henrys work but still).
Not sure what you do about this but I think allowing players to play for the place they come from rather than just where they live has something to do with it. We don"t want two superteams so maybe this should also be revisited when the rules are reviewed. Please note at the time of this post I am in a position to benefit from the rule I am suggesting changes but would like everybody to have an equal chance. Also Wales and Scotland are not international teams so there is no entitlement to play for them for the Welsh and the Scots.
-
Interesting thread - I am happy with the rules either way going forward - but not to change them mid season or retrospectively.
Only in weeks 1 and 4 were there no unregistered players in the points so this scenario has been waiting to happen.
Given that every week there will very likely be unregistered players in the tournament you need to factor it in.
For the people who are currently unregistered - is there a way to flag at registration that you need to register on www.apat.com in order for points to count and to be eligible for the value added prizes.
There is no incentive to not register - it"s just a potential loss to the player concerned.
Logistically is it possible for a message to be sent in the chat box across all the tables at the start of the tournament?
Is it reasonable for people to register for a team in the first hour of the tournament??
Better to flag/resolve during play rather than after?
L
-
The fact is unregistered players have made the points on 5 or 6 occasions. I think that if this had been posted up after week 2 or 3, there would be a valid reason for change (as was done with the structure) but as we have just completed week 8, I think its a bit harsh to suggest we could maybe have a vote on wether to change the ruling and thus amend previous scores. Definitely something to discuss for next season tho.
-
I think now that it has been realised the unregistred player was actually registered , then it wont affect this game as the result would be ammended , but for the future i agree we are now more than halfway and any rule change should be applied before the start of the next run of games.
as for the suggestion that the teams are unfair , are we really going to go back down this route again , i thought it was discussed enough last time round
-
as for the suggestion that the teams are unfair , are we really going to go back down this route again , i thought it was discussed enough last time round
There speaketh a Scot! :)
-
as for the suggestion that the teams are unfair , are we really going to go back down this route again , i thought it was discussed enough last time round
There speaketh a Scot! :)
Steve I dont think a scot , has anything to do with it , it was discussed at great length at the begining of the season , and got a little boring to say the least.
Captains get recruiting if you want to compete ,Simples I took Glasgow last year from 2/3 people each week playing regular to 20+ and results speak for themselves.
If its the case that the whole country -team thing is what people think is unfair then so be it , lets go back to Glasgow,Edinburgh ,Dundee then
What then can people moan about Glasgow when they get consistant turnouts and continued recruitment producing consitant results!
:D
-
You must have missed the winky smiley Gerry ;)
-
Ian has been back in touch regarding the scoring in match 8. We are agreed that the rules were interpreted correctly in scoring the event and he also believes that Cris is not registered within the correct thread in the EoE board, so remains unregistered for match 8 unfortunately.
So there are no changes to the official result.
-
lets go back to Glasgow,Edinburgh ,Dundee then
When these new teams start, will players originally from Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Galashiels, etc still be able to play for those teams or will they be obliged to play for London, North-West, South-East, Wakefield.........?
-
It"s boring now ::) let"s leave the teams debate for another day. Preferably a snowy one.
-
as for the suggestion that the teams are unfair , are we really going to go back down this route again , i thought it was discussed enough last time round
There speaketh a Scot! :)
Must have seeing as there was no WINK , lol Grin
-
As opinions have been requested, my view is that it is an entirely sensible rule. Interlopers are ignored and points are allocated to the highest-finishing 27 players who belong to teams. This is how it has been for several seasons and makes total sense to me. Suppose 12 non-registered players finished in the top 27 - should only 15 players receive points? It"s not hard to imagine the complaints if outsiders caused a team to lose crucial points in the last game of the season. I can"t see that keeping a standard number of points-scorers causes a problem, but I can see it being an issue if non-registered players were allowed to disrupt the game to the extent proposed.
100% agree with John
Just to clarify, the way the rule has been interpreted is the way it was meant when it was first written last season.
However, neither I nor any of the organisers had ever looked at it from the angle that Henry has, and to be honest, it does make a difference to the dynamic of the game around the points levels.
Impossible to change the rules halfway through, but one that I would hope would be looked at before the next league.
Agree with Leigh to a point. However, IF everyone keeps track of who the unregistered"s are then it"s easy to disregard them. I keep track of them, and have in the past let people in my team know if there are any unregistered left in the points so they can be mindful of them. It"s just another part of the game, like knowing who your team mates are and knowing which of the opposition are in the same teams etc.
Please don"t change the rule.