Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => Live Poker => Topic started by: Chipaccrual on September 28, 2012, 13:31:20 PM
-
-
Travel Tips have been available for a while: HERE (http://www.apat.com/forum/index.php?topic=11276.0)*
*I"m organised, I am.
Current rates at the Premier Inn Newcastle-under-Lyme (as of 28/9/2012)
Friday: £29
Saturday: £56
Sunday: £29
Still less than £40 per night.
-
a delay in the announcements i take it?
-
a delay in the announcements i take it?
Going through them with Des over the weekend, he"s been away all week.
We"ll announce soon ;)
-
We have made an adjustment to the split of the teams for this event.
Ireland will now have one team, with England making up an extra team to keep the eight team format.
-
APAT are pleased to announce the captains for the UK & IRE Home Internationals Team Event
England "A" - Richard Baker
England "B" - JP Round
England "C" - Stuart Ward
Ireland "A" - Frank Bailie
Scotland "A" - Jo Sharp
Scotland "B" - David Blacklaw
Wales "A" - Steve Roderick
Wales "B" - Gary Phillips
-
Watch out for threads from the captains looking for players for each team.
-
Stu Ward :-)
About time someone remembered he won a medal once.
-
Well done 1 & all, great choices there and sure they"ll all be delighted 8)
-
Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Massively pleased. thanks APAT.
I"ve just had a quick chat with Curly and we are trying to get hold of the other quieter captain....
We will start and England thread soooon.
-
Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!!!! get in!!!!!!
Chuffed for every single one there.. great picks! Massively deserved.. everyone of them is a star ;D
Good luck to one and all. Huge kiss for each of them from me x
-
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh! Absolutely over the moon, for myself but also for all the other Captains, very much deserved an great picks! Massive thanks to the APAT team!
I will speak with David later and sort out getting a Scotland team thread up ASAP!
Roll on Stoke!!! :) :) :)
-
Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!!!! get in!!!!!!
Chuffed for every single one there.. great picks! Massively deserved.. everyone of them is a star ;D
Good luck to one and all. Huge kiss for each of them from me x
^^^^^^^^+1^^^^^^^ mind you will save the kissing for Emma to do :-*
-
Simply Awesome...
over the moon and cannot stop smiling...
Soooooooo Looking forward to this. Will simply be Legendery....
Bring it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Simply Awesome...
over the moon and cannot stop smiling...
Soooooooo Looking forward to this. Will simply be Legendery....
Bring it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Change of sig? ;)
-
Absolutely thrilled to be chosen, a real honour. (Also, I love the irony of Stu being England "C" Captain :D)
Congrats to all the other captains, it will undoubtedly be EPIC.............. ;)
-
I"m at work at the minute, so will post properly when I get in, just want to say its an absolute honour and I"m chuffed to bits, and well done to all the other captains too. Bring it on!!!
-
Congrats to all, excellent choices :)
CMONNN SCOTLAND!!!!!!
-
The England Team Selection thread has now been posted seperately on the APAT Live Tour boards.
-
I"m at work at the minute, so will post properly when I get in, just want to say its an absolute honour and I"m chuffed to bits, and well done to all the other captains too. Bring it on!!!
Good choice, Stu has that rare weird electricity about him -- that extremely wild and heavy presence that you only see in a person who has abandoned all hope of ever behaving normally.
Oh and good luck ;D
-
Congrats to all captains, great choices across the board. gl all.
-
One question, not sure if this is the right place to ask it. Do captains have to select themselves or can they be non-playing?
-
First would like to say very happy to be given the chance to captain a wales team ;D ;D
Well done to Steve also and to all the other captains also
Lets make this a great tourney and 1st 2nd for wales lol
:D :D
Will get together with steve shortly and sort out a post for anyone wishing to put there name forward for wales
-
One question, not sure if this is the right place to ask it. Do captains have to select themselves or can they be non-playing?
Captains play
Team Selections
Team captains will be responsible for selecting a team of 5 players (including themselves). They have a completely open selection, with just one additional criteria;
The Rookie Rule - Each team must have at least one player that has not represented their country in an APAT Team event before.
-
One question, not sure if this is the right place to ask it. Do captains have to select themselves or can they be non-playing?
Playing captains and one rookie selection (Although the rookie can be the captain if they"ve not played for their country before in an APAT team event)
-
That Ger, he"s getting quick at this mod lark, I need to get back into training and step up my game ;D
-
Congratulations to all Captain"s selected. All Apat through & through and all deserving of this accolade. Hope you all enjoy the event.
-
Congrats and good luck to all :)
-
Congratulations to all the Captains.
It"s a great honour to represent your country.
Ther very best of luck to you all.
TEAM CYMRU FTW!! (and 2nd place obv).
-
Massive congrats to all chosen Captains ... Good picks.
Having spent time with the Stockon massive latey, I"m feeling the need the put kisses on the end of everything
so
Xx
-
Massive congrats to all chosen Captains ... Good picks.
Having spent time with the Stockon massive latey, I"m feeling the need the put kisses on the end of everything
so
Xx
So much mileage - must resist ;D ;D ;D
-
Simply Awesome...
over the moon and cannot stop smiling...
Soooooooo Looking forward to this. Will simply be Legendery....
Bring it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Change of sig? ;)
Deservedly so J P, will come and watch this as my son lives in Stoke unless i get a pick skip lol ::)
Congrats mate and very proud of ya!
Congrats to all of the other captains too ;)
-
Team Selections
England A
Richard Baker
Carl Pilgrim
Glenn Laming
Don Roberts
Ken McBride
England B
JP Round
Mark Porter
Adam Sharples
Asa McGrath
Matt Carter
England C
Stuart Ward
Phil Tompkinson
Paul Davis
Matthew Ward
James Barber
Ireland A
Frank Bailie
Brian Frew
Mark Lassman
John Murray
Kevin O"Hanlon
Scotland A
Jo Sharp
Paul Gupta
Mary Martin
Gordon McArthur
Grant Speirs
Scotland B
David Blacklaw
Shug Cairnie
Naz Wrigley
Tom Clark
Chris Kelly
Wales A
Steve Roderick
Steve Harrison
Aneurin Venables
Sian Jones
Mike Gale
Wales B
Gary Phillips
Darren Shallis
Warren Jones
Richard Rudling-Smith
David Rudling-Smith
-
Is there going to be a 5 aside tourney like last year :0 ?
-
-
-
Thanks Leigh
-
Anyone need a room for the Friday night?
I am going on Sat morning but have a spare bed on Friday at the Holiday Inn (at the moment subject to change)
-
Thanks Leigh
Structures stay as I originally posted, unless you lot play like nits and we have to cut the MTT starting stack and make it a hyper-turbo chip and a chair tourney. ;)
-
Anyone need a room for the Friday night?
I am going on Sat morning but have a spare bed on Friday at the Holiday Inn (at the moment subject to change)
Are you not playing Team event on Friday ??? ??? ???
-
Ignore stupid post above ... you obv mean going home Sat and not "going on Sat".
More sleep required here :/
-
Ignore stupid post above ... you obv mean going home Sat and not "going on Sat".
More sleep required here :/
that a no then lol
price update £23 for the friday night single bed
-
Des/Leigh
I apologize if I have missed this but what time are teams required to be at the venue. I assume there will be photos etc before the event so you will need us there at a reasonable time. I am guessing most of the captains would like a quick chat with their teams before the start so with time being pretty tight we need to plan this well.
Is there still a live stream btw?
Cheers Guy"s - really looking forward to this event.
Rodders
-
I"m aiming for 1pm which gives us enough time for brunch in the pub to recover from Thursday night and 90 minutes for the photos / shirts / team meetings etc. and be in our seats ready for 2.30pm.
-
A quick chat? I"ve cut my motivational pre tourny team talk down to 34 mins 12 secs, but what about the part where we rub baby oil on each other and hug?!?!? My plans are unravelling!!
-
What about the part where we rub baby oil on each other and hug?!?!?
That"s what Thursday night is for.
Team meeting = a few drinks at the bar.
-
Sounds like a good night to me!!!
-
Who"s going up on thursday?
-
Who"s going up on thursday?
Me, Ger & Stu + a couple...you"d have to read the tread here too. http://www.apat.com/forum/index.php?topic=12713.0
-
We all know and love Curly and we also know that the "sporty" Merc will be smoking it up the M6 8)
-
Myself and Lucy, Phil and matty later on and James "Bigtime" barber at some point too :) so practically everyone :)
-
Myself and Lucy, Phil and matty later on and James "Bigtime" barber at some point too so practically everyone who matters
FYP
Be there or be Welsh!
-
Myself and Lucy, Phil and matty later on and James "Bigtime" barber at some point too so practically everyone who matters
FYP
Be there or be Welsh!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
See everyone tomorrow.
-
Myself and Lucy, Phil and matty later on and James "Bigtime" barber at some point too so practically everyone who matters
FYP
Be there or be Welsh!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
See everyone tomorrow.
I can"t make tomorrow btw. All of Team Cymru will be fresh and hangover free on Friday.
I will be arriving at the hotel circa 11:30am on Friday. Hopefully I will be able to see some of you there at that time.
-
I will be arriving at the hotel circa 11:30am on Friday. Hopefully I will be able to see some of you there at that time.
Yeah right - good luck with that
-
I will be arriving at the hotel circa 11:30am on Friday. Hopefully I will be able to see some of you there at that time.
Yeah right - good luck with that
:D
See you tomorrow night gang 8)
-
1 MORE FECKING SLEEP!!!!
(and 8 hours of fecking work :( )
-
We all know and love Curly and we also know that the "sporty" Merc will be smoking it up the M6 8)
YES. ;D
-
Some of the Scottish contingent will be on the road to Stoke in just under 12 hours from now. Looking forward to a good few days of banter and poker.
-
Myself and Lucy, Phil and matty later on and James "Bigtime" barber at some point too so practically everyone who matters
FYP
Be there or be Welsh!
I forgot to mention that staying away from this evenings gathering in fact does, unfortunately, not actually make you Welsh. It is very unkind of Paulie to get so many peoples hopes up like that. I am sure most of you had intended to say at home tonight on reading this this post thinking you would then be Welsh. This is not the case I am sorry. I would recommend going and enjoying this evening as it will be no difference to how Welsh you are.
Those of you who are not playing for other teams are permitted to support Wales of course. Whilst people playing for other teams may want to support Wales it is not recommended.
-
Myself and Lucy, Phil and matty later on and James "Bigtime" barber at some point too so practically everyone who matters
FYP
Be there or be Welsh!
I forgot to mention that staying away from this evenings gathering in fact does, unfortunately, not actually make you Welsh. It is very unkind of Paulie to get so many peoples hopes up like that. I am sure most of you had intended to say at home tonight on reading this this post thinking you would then be Welsh. This is not the case I am sorry. I would recommend going and enjoying this evening as it will be no difference to how Welsh you are.
Those of you who are not playing for other teams are permitted to support Wales of course. Whilst people playing for other teams may want to support Wales it is not recommended.
LOL. I nominate this as post of the year. Any other nominations ?
-
Des/Leigh
I apologize if I have missed this but what time are teams required to be at the venue. I assume there will be photos etc before the event so you will need us there at a reasonable time. I am guessing most of the captains would like a quick chat with their teams before the start so with time being pretty tight we need to plan this well.
Is there still a live stream btw?
Cheers Guy"s - really looking forward to this event.
Rodders
Casino opens from 12 Noon.
We would ask all captains to have their teams in the venue by 1:30pm, with the first round of STT"s starting at 2:30pm.
I"m aiming on being at the casino from 1pm, maybe a bit earlier depending on traffic.
-
Sigh@ trying to get tompkyfish anywhere on time :(
-
Sigh@ trying to get tompkyfish anywhere on time :(
Use your leadership skills, then he will follow where you lead.
I would recommend telling him there is a Cold Guinness waiting when you get there.
-
Myself and Lucy, Phil and matty later on and James "Bigtime" barber at some point too so practically everyone who matters
FYP
Be there or be Welsh!
I forgot to mention that staying away from this evenings gathering in fact does, unfortunately, not actually make you Welsh. It is very unkind of Paulie to get so many peoples hopes up like that. I am sure most of you had intended to say at home tonight on reading this this post thinking you would then be Welsh. This is not the case I am sorry. I would recommend going and enjoying this evening as it will be no difference to how Welsh you are.
Those of you who are not playing for other teams are permitted to support Wales of course. Whilst people playing for other teams may want to support Wales it is not recommended.
Dear readers,
My apologies if any of you were hoping to become Welsh by not attending the Thursday night festivities.
I was, of course, using verbal shorthand.
Obviously, one cannot change ones nationality or heritage by lack of attendance but a failure to attend such events will make you unpopular, considered a dry "stick in the mud", a lightweight of epic proportions and the sort of person who takes sheep unawares.
What I should have said, of course, was "Be there or you might as well be Welsh"
My bad.
-
Myself and Lucy, Phil and matty later on and James "Bigtime" barber at some point too so practically everyone who matters
FYP
Be there or be Welsh!
I forgot to mention that staying away from this evenings gathering in fact does, unfortunately, not actually make you Welsh. It is very unkind of Paulie to get so many peoples hopes up like that. I am sure most of you had intended to say at home tonight on reading this this post thinking you would then be Welsh. This is not the case I am sorry. I would recommend going and enjoying this evening as it will be no difference to how Welsh you are.
Those of you who are not playing for other teams are permitted to support Wales of course. Whilst people playing for other teams may want to support Wales it is not recommended.
Dear readers,
My apologies if any of you were hoping to become Welsh by not attending the Thursday night festivities.
I was, of course, using verbal shorthand.
Obviously, one cannot change ones nationality or heritage by lack of attendance but a failure to attend such events will make you unpopular, considered a dry "stick in the mud", a lightweight of epic proportions and the sort of person who takes sheep unawares.
What I should have said, of course, was "Be there or you might as well be Welsh"
My bad.
^^^^^ new nomination for post of the year! ;D
-
Medal Matches
After the MTT, the top 4 teams will qualify for the Heads Up Medal Matches
The highest and second highest scoring teams will compete in the Gold medal match
The third and fourth highest scoring teams will compete in the Bronze medal match
Medal matches will consist of up to five heads up matches, with the first team to win three matches declared the winners. Captains will declare their order of play prior to the first match, and it will be played similarly to a penalty shootout.
Wait...and I realise this is WAY too late because I only really twigged tonight but supposing a team dominates all the STT/SNG and MTT winning everything in sight they can still lose based on HU matches?
That"s just wrong.
A team could win every STT, put 5 players in the final 5 of the MTT and still get a silver based in 5 HU?
Exactly how is that fair?
Doesn"t that pretty much invalidate the point of anything that has gone before?
-
Medal Matches
After the MTT, the top 4 teams will qualify for the Heads Up Medal Matches
The highest and second highest scoring teams will compete in the Gold medal match
The third and fourth highest scoring teams will compete in the Bronze medal match
Medal matches will consist of up to five heads up matches, with the first team to win three matches declared the winners. Captains will declare their order of play prior to the first match, and it will be played similarly to a penalty shootout.
Wait...and I realise this is WAY too late because I only really twigged tonight but supposing a team dominates all the STT/SNG and MTT winning everything in sight they can still lose based on HU matches?
That"s just wrong.
A team could win every STT, put 5 players in the final 5 of the MTT and still get a silver based in 5 HU?
Exactly how is that fair?
Doesn"t that pretty much invalidate the point of anything that has gone before?
Surely this cannot be right?
If so, then very much +1 to what Paulie has said.
Must be some reward for the previous positions, Some part of the prizepool (i suggest 50%), should be determined by the positions before the HU challenge.
-
Glad to see everyone was really clued up with the format! ;)
-
Medal Matches
After the MTT, the top 4 teams will qualify for the Heads Up Medal Matches
The highest and second highest scoring teams will compete in the Gold medal match
The third and fourth highest scoring teams will compete in the Bronze medal match
Medal matches will consist of up to five heads up matches, with the first team to win three matches declared the winners. Captains will declare their order of play prior to the first match, and it will be played similarly to a penalty shootout.
Wait...and I realise this is WAY too late because I only really twigged tonight but supposing a team dominates all the STT/SNG and MTT winning everything in sight they can still lose based on HU matches?
That"s just wrong.
A team could win every STT, put 5 players in the final 5 of the MTT and still get a silver based in 5 HU?
Exactly how is that fair?
Doesn"t that pretty much invalidate the point of anything that has gone before?
Drawing a comparison, if a country playing in the football world cup finals won all of their group stage matches 10-0, ran away the group, then crushed their QF and SF matches 10-0 each time...... then played the final against a team that had scraped through, and got beaten into the silver medal spot........ would you claim that to be unfair as well?
In this event, the STTs and MTTs are obviously seen as qualification rounds to get to the HU finals.
-
I have heard a few people say that the MTT points are out of sync with the STT points, my suggestion is quite a simple one, make the points for the STT"s worth 5 times as much i.e 40,35,30 etc etc. I think all former captains should get together for an online chat and come up with a standard points structure that is sanctioned by all countries which take part in team events. Personally I am happy to play under what ever scoring system Apat decides, however I have heard the comments about the MTT points on numerous occasions and feel consultation/debate is the best way forward to avoid future comments which I feel detracts from the efforts of the successful teams.
-
This was my first international team event and I really enjoyed despite the disappointing results for the Wales teams. Congrats to the APAT management team for the exceptional organisation yet again.
Like some others I wonder however if the structure of the points system could be tweaked. In my opinion the decision to have a knockout heads up was a very good one and be retained for future events. However I believe there a shortfalls in the current points system :
1. The overall result is unfairly weighted to the MTT. The overall points awarded to the MTT is 820 (40+39...+1) , whilst the STTs are 180 each ((8+7....+1)*5), almost making the result of the first two rounds irrelevant.
2. Both the events have a very flat structure, with the ladder starting from the first hand and very low percentage of the total prizes (points) to 1st place - only 4.8% in MTT (40/820). This does nothing but to encourage tight play as there is no incentive to play for first place and every incentive to sit tight and ladder up - this suits my own personal style but I am sure not that APAT really want to encourage this.
3. The points result is often decided well before the MTT gets into the latter stages of the final table as happened last year and this year. This is because the majority of the points have already been allocated before the final table (only 45 of the total 820 available points are left to be allocated). All final table players already have a minimum of 31 points, with only a maximum of 9 more points to win.
My suggestions for the a new point structure would be as follows :
STTs 1st place - 3 points, 2nd - 2 points, 3rd - 1 point
MTT 1st place - 14 points, 2nd - 10 points, 3rd - 6 points, 4th - 4 points, 5th - 3 points, 6th -2 points, 7th - 1 point.
Total Points for Holdem STT 5x6 = 30.
Total points for Omaha STT 5x6 = 30.
Total points for MTT = 40.
Personally I think this structure would resolve most of the issues highlighted above. It would mean of course that a significant number of players would score no points but I think we are man enough to take it !!
Please be assured this is certainly not a criticism of this or past events - but a suggested improvement for future events.
Looking forward to the next one (if selected) already.
-
This was my first international team event and I really enjoyed despite the disappointing results for the Wales teams. Congrats to the APAT management team for the exceptional organisation yet again.
Like some others I wonder however if the structure of the points system could be tweaked. In my opinion the decision to have a knockout heads up was a very good one and be retained for future events. However I believe there a shortfalls in the current points system :
1. The overall result is unfairly weighted to the MTT. The overall points awarded to the MTT is 820 (40+39...+1) , whilst the STTs are 180 each ((8+7....+1)*5), almost making the result of the first two rounds irrelevant.
2. Both the events have a very flat structure, with the ladder starting from the first hand and very low percentage of the total prizes (points) to 1st place - only 4.8% in MTT (40/820). This does nothing but to encourage tight play as there is no incentive to play for first place and every incentive to sit tight and ladder up - this suits my own personal style but I am sure not that APAT really want to encourage this.
3. The points result is often decided well before the MTT gets into the latter stages of the final table as happened last year and this year. This is because the majority of the points have already been allocated before the final table (only 45 of the total 820 available points are left to be allocated). All final table players already have a minimum of 31 points, with only a maximum of 9 more points to win.
My suggestions for the a new point structure would be as follows :
STTs 1st place - 3 points, 2nd - 2 points, 3rd - 1 point
MTT 1st place - 14 points, 2nd - 10 points, 3rd - 6 points, 4th - 4 points, 5th - 3 points, 6th -2 points, 7th - 1 point.
Total Points for Holdem STT 5x6 = 30.
Total points for Omaha STT 5x6 = 30.
Total points for MTT = 40.
Personally I think this structure would resolve most of the issues highlighted above. It would mean of course that a significant number of players would score no points but I think we are man enough to take it !!
Please be assured this is certainly not a criticism of this or past events - but a suggested improvement for future events.
Looking forward to the next one (if selected) already.
+1
Was thinking about this myself whilst watching the updates. Cannot agree more with having a steeper points structure and more equitable points between SNGs and MTTs, and not paying everyone in the MTT.
Should you really be awarding someone folding for 2-3 hours to 20th with 50% of what the winner gets?
-
I have heard a few people say that the MTT points are out of sync with the STT points, my suggestion is quite a simple one, make the points for the STT"s worth 5 times as much i.e 40,35,30 etc etc. I think all former captains should get together for an online chat and come up with a standard points structure that is sanctioned by all countries which take part in team events. Personally I am happy to play under what ever scoring system Apat decides, however I have heard the comments about the MTT points on numerous occasions and feel consultation/debate is the best way forward to avoid future comments which I feel detracts from the efforts of the successful teams.
Agree 100% with this, suggested the same points structure to the Scottish lads at the weekend
-
I"ve just been playing around with the points for the weekend (Doesn"t matter what I do, I can"t make the Welsh and Irish performance score more ;) )
There have been a few discussions around the scoring, here"s a couple of reworkings to aid the discussion.
F1 style staggered points
STT"s = 15pts, 12pts, 10pts, 8pts, 6pts, 4pts, 2pts, 0pts
MTT"s (Top 20 only) = 40pts, 35pts, 30pts, 24pts, 20pts, 18pts, 16pts, 14pts, 12pts, 10pts, 9pts.....1pt
This is how the table would have looked
| Team | NLHE | PLO | MTT | | | | TOTAL |
| | | | | | | |
| Scotland B | 48 | 42 | 81 | | | | 171 |
| England B | 30 | 51 | 53 | | | | 134 |
| England A | 51 | 32 | 29 | | | | 112 |
| England C | 30 | 50 | 30 | | | | 110 |
| Wales B | 48 | 36 | 9 | | | | 93 |
| Wales A | 34 | 30 | 21 | | | | 85 |
| Scotland A | 25 | 31 | 26 | | | | 82 |
| Ireland A | 24 | 18 | 40 | | | | 82 |
-
I have heard a few people say that the MTT points are out of sync with the STT points, my suggestion is quite a simple one, make the points for the STT"s worth 5 times as much i.e 40,35,30 etc etc. I think all former captains should get together for an online chat and come up with a standard points structure that is sanctioned by all countries which take part in team events. Personally I am happy to play under what ever scoring system Apat decides, however I have heard the comments about the MTT points on numerous occasions and feel consultation/debate is the best way forward to avoid future comments which I feel detracts from the efforts of the successful teams.
Using the above
The table would have looked like
| Team | NLHE | PLO | MTT | | | | TOTAL |
| | | | | | | |
| Scotland B | 140 | 130 | 139 | | | | 409 |
| England C | 100 | 145 | 113 | | | | 358 |
| England B | 100 | 150 | 100 | | | | 350 |
| England A | 150 | 100 | 94 | | | | 344 |
| Wales B | 140 | 110 | 88 | | | | 338 |
| Wales A | 110 | 100 | 96 | | | | 306 |
| Scotland A | 80 | 100 | 112 | | | | 292 |
| Ireland A | 80 | 65 | 78 | | | | 223 |
-
My suggestions for the a new point structure would be as follows :
STTs 1st place - 3 points, 2nd - 2 points, 3rd - 1 point
MTT 1st place - 14 points, 2nd - 10 points, 3rd - 6 points, 4th - 4 points, 5th - 3 points, 6th -2 points, 7th - 1 point.
Found one that helps the Irish and Welsh. If the above had worked the table would have looked like this
| Team | NLHE | PLO | MTT | | | | TOTAL |
| | | | | | | |
| Scotland B | 7 | 4 | 14 | | | | 25 |
| England B | 2 | 6 | 9 | | | | 17 |
| Ireland A | 2 | 1 | 14 | | | | 17 |
| Wales B | 7 | 5 | 0 | | | | 12 |
| England A | 6 | 3 | 2 | | | | 11 |
| England C | 0 | 6 | 1 | | | | 7 |
| Scotland A | 3 | 3 | 0 | | | | 6 |
| Wales A | 3 | 2 | 0 | | | | 5 |
-
Obviously the dynamic changes when the points change, so the games would most definitely have played out differentely.
But, whatever way we slice and dice it, we can"t remove them pesky Scottish B lads from the top of the table. ;D
Well played guys.
-
With a bit more tinkering, I think I"ve found a scoring system that produces a fair result.
If we leave the MTT as it stands, leave the STT scoring as it stands until the top 3, then reward 0pts for third, 20pts for second and 0pts for first, we get the following, much much fairer result
| Team | NLHE | PLO | MTT | | | | TOTAL |
| | | | | | | |
| Wales B | 46 | 42 | 88 | | | | 176 |
| Scotland B | 6 | 27 | 139 | | | | 172 |
| England B | 33 | 29 | 100 | | | | 162 |
| Wales A | 29 | 33 | 96 | | | | 158 |
| England C | 20 | 13 | 113 | | | | 146 |
| Scotland A | 8 | 12 | 112 | | | | 132 |
| Ireland A | 29 | 7 | 78 | | | | 114 |
| England A | 4 | 12 | 94 | | | | 110 |
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Nice work Leigh, I have to agree that whatever method used Scotland B were the deserved winners, I look forward to seeing any other calculation suggestions that the Members put forward for debate.
-
I think t point is that all systems are going to be seen as unfair.
At the end of the day it"s the same for every one surely?
-
My suggestions for the a new point structure would be as follows :
STTs 1st place - 3 points, 2nd - 2 points, 3rd - 1 point
MTT 1st place - 14 points, 2nd - 10 points, 3rd - 6 points, 4th - 4 points, 5th - 3 points, 6th -2 points, 7th - 1 point.
Found one that helps the Irish and Welsh. If the above had worked the table would have looked like this
| Team | NLHE | PLO | MTT | | | | TOTAL |
| | | | | | | |
| Scotland B | 7 | 4 | 14 | | | | 25 |
| England B | 2 | 6 | 9 | | | | 17 |
| Ireland A | 2 | 1 | 14 | | | | 17 |
| Wales B | 7 | 5 | 0 | | | | 12 |
| England A | 6 | 3 | 2 | | | | 11 |
| England C | 0 | 6 | 1 | | | | 7 |
| Scotland A | 3 | 3 | 0 | | | | 6 |
| Wales A | 3 | 2 | 0 | | | | 5 |
We were robbed!
-
I think t point is that all systems are going to be seen as unfair.
At the end of the day it"s the same for every one surely?
Agree with the second point, it"s same for everyone and Scotland B were by far the best team on the day and the trophy couldnt have gone to a better bunch of guys... was a privilege to have the chance to play against them.
However think the current system was pretty universally considered unsatisfactory. The lengthy STTs compromised the structure of the MTT and what was already a tournament stacked towards that became a crapshoot after a couple of levels. Our captain"s first words were forget about the STTs, it"ll be decided on the MTT, which was right... so no complaints there, but wouldnt it be a shame if everyone sat out the STTs and just focused on the MTT. Surely not what the tournament is about.
If there are to be STTs, surely they should have a significant impact on the overall result, if not... my vote would be to dispense with them and have an MTT with a better structure.
Still, when all"s said and done, great day... very worthy winners and whatever the stucture it"s a huge honour to take part.... but better structure could only improve it.
-
Ditch the MTT and introduce additional STTs, perhaps with other poker varieties included....
-
However think the current system was pretty universally considered unsatisfactory. The lengthy STTs compromised the structure of the MTT and what was already a tournament stacked towards that became a crapshoot after a couple of levels.
I disagree with all three points being made here.
Firstly, it was not universally considered unsatisfactory...I liked it. If I had any issue with the "system" it was the "apparent" arbitrary way deciding 1st & 2nd (Gold & Silver) but that had no relation to the points being awarded.
The STTs were only "lengthy" because at last two of them had long HU battles at the end...both of which went over an hour. You can"t legislate against that.
Finally, the MTT was (IMO) in no way a crapshoot...it had a decent structure and clock. The STT certainly had an impact in that having overrun we started with 5k instead of 7k but it still ran for 4 hours IIRC.
If people really want the STT to have more impact then add a couple more points to 1st (12) & 2nd (10) so that there is something to fight over instead of just a single point.
Against that, if the MTT is to have LESS impact them lets award ZERO points for finishing in the bottom half and then 1 - 20 for the MTT.
However, I"ll lay some money that if Leigh runs those numbers it will still have Scotland B winning it. There is no doubt in my mind that on the day, the best team won it.
;D
-
Ditch the MTT and introduce additional STTs, perhaps with other poker varieties included....
Genius
-
However, I"ll lay some money that if Leigh runs those numbers it will still have Scotland B winning it. There is no doubt in my mind that on the day, the best team won it.
Totally echo those sentiments... and that on the day all three medal-winning teams totally deserved to finish where they did.
However two instances stood out for me, Warren Jones" efforts in both STTs and Curly"s efforts in the PLO STT where he came back from a couple of chips early on after a tough beat to win it. But I"m sure there were many more cases during the first two rounds of STTs where people"s efforts deserved to have more bearing on the outcome than they did.
If people really want the STT to have more impact then add a couple more points to 1st (12) & 2nd (10) so that there is something to fight over instead of just a single point.
Against that, if the MTT is to have LESS impact them lets award ZERO points for finishing in the bottom half and then 1 - 20 for the MTT.
Broadly agree with this also but think that with a bit of thought an even better solution could be found.
But no complaints from my part about the medallists, all thoroughly deserved. And everyone knew the stucture before hand so it was what it was. But I certainly feel the points-scoring as it stands could do with improvement and feel the debate can only improve what are great events that are a privilege to be part of.
-
Warren Jones" efforts in both STTs and Curly"s efforts in the PLO STT where he came back from a couple of chips early on after a tough beat to win it. But I"m sure there were many more cases during the first two rounds of STTs where people"s efforts deserved to have more bearing on the outcome than they did.
If they won then their effort were rewarded perhaps with not enough points but there it is.
I"m unsure how coming back from a tough beat (as would seem to be implied) could even be factored into a points calculation.
Variance will even out...how you could possibly quantify one persons effort over another is, to all intents and purposes, impossible.
-
With a bit more tinkering, I think I"ve found a scoring system that produces a fair result.
If we leave the MTT as it stands, leave the STT scoring as it stands until the top 3, then reward 0pts for third, 20pts for second and 0pts for first, we get the following, much much fairer result
| Team | NLHE | PLO | MTT | | | | TOTAL |
| | | | | | | |
| Wales B | 46 | 42 | 88 | | | | 176 |
| Scotland B | 6 | 27 | 139 | | | | 172 |
| England B | 33 | 29 | 100 | | | | 162 |
| Wales A | 29 | 33 | 96 | | | | 158 |
| England C | 20 | 13 | 113 | | | | 146 |
| Scotland A | 8 | 12 | 112 | | | | 132 |
| Ireland A | 29 | 7 | 78 | | | | 114 |
| England A | 4 | 12 | 94 | | | | 110 |
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
A moot point. We"d still have won the heads up to take Gold :D
-
The STTs were only "lengthy" because at last two of them had long HU battles at the end...both of which went over an hour. You can"t legislate against that.
That happens every time. There is always one STT where the HU goes on way longer than the rest, with everyone else waiting.
-
With a bit more tinkering, I think I"ve found a scoring system that produces a fair result.
If we leave the MTT as it stands, leave the STT scoring as it stands until the top 3, then reward 0pts for third, 20pts for second and 0pts for first, we get the following, much much fairer result
| Team | NLHE | PLO | MTT | | | | TOTAL |
| | | | | | | |
| Wales B | 46 | 42 | 88 | | | | 176 |
| Scotland B | 6 | 27 | 139 | | | | 172 |
| England B | 33 | 29 | 100 | | | | 162 |
| Wales A | 29 | 33 | 96 | | | | 158 |
| England C | 20 | 13 | 113 | | | | 146 |
| Scotland A | 8 | 12 | 112 | | | | 132 |
| Ireland A | 29 | 7 | 78 | | | | 114 |
| England A | 4 | 12 | 94 | | | | 110 |
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
A moot point. We"d still have won the heads up to take Gold :D
indeed a moot point!
-
My points, which I"ll try to keep succinct
Firstly, the best team won. No doubt! VWP & a great set of lads
Secondly. whilst I know people are just having a bit of fun with the "what if" scoring scenarios, they are irrelevant as the teams would have been playing the scoring system in place (Dave Howard"s point about rewarding someone for folding to 20th place is very valid for this discussion, but on Friday that was the system in place so to an extent was the right thing to do
A formula 1 stylee top weighted scoring system makes more sense and would encourage mare creative play (e.g. 15, 12, 9, 7, 5, 3, 2, 1) or awarding the top 3
Similarly (if the MTT remains) I would only award points to the Top 50% as stated elsewhere, once again top loaded
Steve has suggested ditching the MTT altogether and having more Sit n Gos, possibly with more variants? Is there a halfway house option of a 16 person Sit & Go (would need to have teams of 4 or 6 to work)
I LOVED the Heads Up play off idea from the offset and thought it was great in practice too. Keep it.
-
Not much to say on top of what I said at the venue, great tournament. The MTT could have a little bit less on it. Loved the heads up play offs for this specific event, keep them for next years Home Nations and ECOAP.
The WCOAP is different though and I would not have thought the heads up play offs should be part of that. The best team should be the world champions.
-
Not much to say on top of what I said at the venue, great tournament. The MTT could have a little bit less on it. Loved the heads up play offs for this specific event, keep them for next years Home Nations and ECOAP.
The WCOAP is different though and I would not have thought the heads up play offs should be part of that. The best team should be the world champions.
Are you suggesting that having the HU play offs means that the best team might not be the world champions?
-
... The best team should be the world champions.
Do you mean like the football World Cup is always won by the best team? (or rugby, cricket, ....)
The only sure way to find out the best is a long and boring league structure, I think it might be better to try and veer even more towards a cup idea. Perhaps an opportunity for some real creativity in the way it"s set up.
For example in the stt"s having the first player to (more than) double there starting stack qualifying towards a Champions STT. As soon as this happens there chips are removed from play the remainder play it out with the winner of this sit n go being given a runners up spot to the same Champions STT. This would have a significant number of points available to those who "cashed" (top half maybe), whilst the remainder of the STT losers would play an MTT with points available to the final table.
It"s difficult to simulate what kind of result that would give, but it"s really just an idea to say that fiddling around with the structure of the team tournaments doesn"t just have to mean looking at the points allocations (for example).
-
Or an MTT eliminator, where we automatically lose 10% of the remaining field every hour ;D
-
Or an MTT eliminator, where we automatically lose 10% of the remaining field every hour ;D
only if they are removed by public vote irrespective of chipcounts ;)
-
Or an MTT eliminator, where we automatically lose 10% of the remaining field every hour ;D
The 9 players with the lowest chips every break, would be easy enough to put in to practice. Points being awarded depending on which break you reached, with a deep stacked final table with lots of points available at the end (http://blondepoker.com/forum/Smileys/default/thumbs.gif)
-
Or an MTT eliminator, where we automatically lose 10% of the remaining field every hour ;D
The 9 players with the lowest chips every break, would be easy enough to put in to practice. Points being awarded depending on which break you reached, with a deep stacked final table with lots of points available at the end (http://blondepoker.com/forum/Smileys/default/thumbs.gif)
Would you declare a winner at half-time in a football match just because they were 1-0 up?
An MTT is about the long-haul, playing short-stack ninja poker as necessary and using whatever skills one has to triumph TO THE END.
If, as seems to be the majority view, the MTT is receiving too much weight in the overall result then some points tweakage is desirable, if not, in fact, necessary.
-
... The best team should be the world champions.
Do you mean like the football World Cup is always won by the best team? (or rugby, cricket, ....)
The only sure way to find out the best is a long and boring league structure, I think it might be better to try and veer even more towards a cup idea. Perhaps an opportunity for some real creativity in the way it"s set up.
For example in the stt"s having the first player to (more than) double there starting stack qualifying towards a Champions STT. As soon as this happens there chips are removed from play the remainder play it out with the winner of this sit n go being given a runners up spot to the same Champions STT. This would have a significant number of points available to those who "cashed" (top half maybe), whilst the remainder of the STT losers would play an MTT with points available to the final table.
It"s difficult to simulate what kind of result that would give, but it"s really just an idea to say that fiddling around with the structure of the team tournaments doesn"t just have to mean looking at the points allocations (for example).
I guess Scotland would still win ;)
-
For example in the stt"s having the first player to (more than) double there starting stack qualifying towards a Champions STT.
New ideas to refresh the format should be encouraged and I think this one has some merit and could be worked on.
Or an MTT eliminator, where we automatically lose 10% of the remaining field every hour ;D
The 9 players with the lowest chips every break, would be easy enough to put in to practice. Points being awarded depending on which break you reached, with a deep stacked final table with lots of points available at the end (http://blondepoker.com/forum/Smileys/default/thumbs.gif)
Can you imagine the mayhem with this one, though, with short-stacks repeatedly all-in with ATC, as they would eliminated anyway if they didn"t chip up?
Some would get called down light and others would be complaining that they were eliminated cos their table unsportingly wouldn"t call them, denying them the chance to double up. Would eliminations count as part of the lowest nine?
-
Do you mean like the football World Cup is always won by the best team?
Would you declare a winner at half-time in a football match just because they were 1-0 up?
Football analogy bans for this pair please. This is a poker forum - not every scenario has to be compared with what would happen in football.
-
...
Can you imagine the mayhem with this one, though, ...
I know, it would be brilliant ;D
And mine wasn"t really a football analogy it was a World Cup analogy to refute that the winner is ever likely to be definitively the best team/person playing.
The mark of the best poker players is their ability to react to changing circumstances, as long as whatever innovation was introduced didn"t have too high an element of luck involved it would be just challenge those involved to think outside their comfort zones.
-
For example in the stt"s having the first player to (more than) double there starting stack qualifying towards a Champions STT.
New ideas to refresh the format should be encouraged and I think this one has some merit and could be worked on.
This is a TERRIBLE idea...and drastically adds too much weight to the "luck factor"
-
Are you suggesting that having the HU play offs means that the best team might not be the world champions?
I am saying that the heads up play off makes it even less likely than it already is yes
... The best team should be the world champions.
Do you mean like the football World Cup is always won by the best team? (or rugby, cricket, ....)
No, like the best team normally wins the league.
We can"t really have a league long enough in poker to ensure the luck factor is removed but we can try to minimize it. I would say in my opinion all of the idea in this thread would increase the luck factor over the existing format.
For example in the stt"s having the first player to (more than) double there starting stack qualifying towards a Champions STT.
There is something in this I think, but would it not make more sense for the STT winners to be put into the champions STT? This would help iron out the fact that the MTT carries too much weight. Would need some work but there might well be something in it.
I do think that all of the above fun ideas could be tried in next years Home Nations as they would be fun and add to that side of it but the event at DTD in March is about APAT's best players doing their thing (imo). Most of the above ideas would make the tournament more fun to watch but I am guessing those playing it will want the best format giving the maximum possible edge to the better players.
-
For example in the stt"s having the first player to (more than) double there starting stack qualifying towards a Champions STT.
New ideas to refresh the format should be encouraged and I think this one has some merit and could be worked on.
This is a TERRIBLE idea...and drastically adds too much weight to the "luck factor"
If the target was just double the starting stack then it would. But the (more than) was specifically to counter that.
For example, if the starting stack was 5k the target could be 12k.
The blind levels at the start would be low so the "proper" game theory approach to "win" this would be to play consistently aggressive poker and keep on chipping up until you reached the target. The "gambling" approach to this would be to keep on inflating the pots and getting your chips in and hoping you induced folds or your hands held up.
But even with the gambling approach it doesn"t increase the overall luck factor in the game - any single table tournament has an increased level of luck at the end because of the high blinds; so all this gambling approach does is transfer the "luck" element from the end to the beginning of the tournament. Given how tight some of these STT"s have been and how high the blinds have got if anything it reduces it - at the end of the tournament a single hand can effectively decide it; but with this (more than double) approach that can"t be the case.
And aside from this specific scenario - like I suggested - I"d just like to see some genuine innovation.