Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => General Discussion => Topic started by: Honeybadg on April 25, 2011, 13:09:03 PM
-
... I am not sure if this has been discussed before ... but
It is there scope in the future to run an APAT cash game alongside a two day event?
L
-
... I am not sure if this has been discussed before ... but
It is there scope in the future to run an APAT cash game alongside a two day event?
L
Always plans. What do you fancy, a 48 hour BIG game ?
-
Get in the queue, son. Plans for a live stream of the Tighty SNG with Jesse May commentating and Kara Scott hosting come first
"Oi, irritating man, PENALTY. 2000 chips"
-
Get in the queue, son. Plans for a live stream of the Tighty SNG with Jesse May commentating and Kara Scott hosting come first
"Oi, irritating man, PENALTY. 2000 chips"
that"s so unfair i"m in
-
Get in the queue, son. Plans for a live stream of the Tighty SNG with Jesse May commentating and Kara Scott hosting come first
"Oi, irritating man, PENALTY. 2000 chips"
hahahahaha.
late night tighty sit n go would be awesome, count me and tompkyfish in please!
-
I presume JB and myself get automatic entry being reigning champions? ;D
-
... I am not sure if this has been discussed before ... but
It is there scope in the future to run an APAT cash game alongside a two day event?
L
Maybe it could be run as part of the specialist series on a day 2 ... my thought process was to crown a cash champion alongside all the MTT champions ...
L
Always plans. What do you fancy, a 48 hour BIG game ?
-
I presume JB and myself get automatic entry being reigning champions? ;D
LMAO get in line...irritating Scot with the shrill voice gets 1st dibs :D
-
Would love this to get going!!!!
-
Why?
don"t cash games happen anyway?
-
Why?
don"t cash games happen anyway? YES THEY DO
looks like this guy has not been to a tighty cash/sng game
-
Why?
don"t cash games happen anyway?
... the idea would be find an APAT cash "champion" ... played over a long duration ... L
-
-
APAT could rip off Premier League poker, High Stakes or Poker After Dark. Get some holecard cams going = uber great spectacle.
Obviously in my fantasy world money is no option ;)
-
How about the following ... (off the top of my head)
At some future event we start with one (or more) cash table(s) ... stakes to be decided ... (max re-buys to be decided)
The cash table could be open to all - if too many players then starting players by lots.
(Or have some qualifying events on 888?)
Players can leave if they want at any time, but otherwise players are periodically introduced from a waiting list.
Table review every say 60 mins, with the two players who have lost the most in the previous session replaced (though they can rejoin the waiting list).
Players are rated by net profit ...
Thoughts?
L
-
do a big game style vote
-
How about the following ... (off the top of my head)
At some future event we start with one (or more) cash table(s) ... stakes to be decided ... (max re-buys to be decided)
The cash table could be open to all - if too many players then starting players by lots.
(Or have some qualifying events on 888?)
Players can leave if they want at any time, but otherwise players are periodically introduced from a waiting list.
Table review every say 60 mins, with the two players who have lost the most in the previous session replaced (though they can rejoin the waiting list).
Players are rated by net profit ...
Thoughts?
L
Disagree - not fair if ppl suffer a bad beat then cant try and win it back.
-
How about the following ... (off the top of my head)
At some future event we start with one (or more) cash table(s) ... stakes to be decided ... (max re-buys to be decided)
The cash table could be open to all - if too many players then starting players by lots.
(Or have some qualifying events on 888?)
Players can leave if they want at any time, but otherwise players are periodically introduced from a waiting list.
Table review every say 60 mins, with the two players who have lost the most in the previous session replaced (though they can rejoin the waiting list).
Players are rated by net profit ...
Thoughts?
L
Rated by profit is a def, but would be v unfair to make players who are losing leave the table. I dnt think there would be massive demand for a space at the table. If we got 15 players then could start with 9 and have people to sit in when people naturally want to stop/take a break. Could be great entertainment tho!!
-
... could rotate people by lots too ... I would have thought there would be great demand as people were ejected from the MTT ... could be wrong ...
Could rotate off the people that play the least hands!
L
-
... could rotate people by lots too ... I would have thought there would be great demand as people were ejected from the MTT ... could be wrong ...
Could rotate off the people that play the least hands!
L
Im fully behin the idea of the cash game, but dnt think that rotating players like this is great. It would suck to be forced to leave the table after being card dead for an hour (30 hands). Live poker is slow. It could be run as a normal game with a starting table and a waiting list. People will naturally bust out and have breaks.
-
Rotation every hour by player vote. Each player at the table submits a private vote, and the person with the most votes has to leave.
-
Rotation every hour by player vote. Each player at the table submits a private vote, and the person with the most votes has to leave.
i.e get rid of the sharks, and leave the fish............you can stay Steve
-
... could rotate people by lots too ... I would have thought there would be great demand as people were ejected from the MTT ... could be wrong ...
Could rotate off the people that play the least hands!
L
Im fully behin the idea of the cash game, but dnt think that rotating players like this is great. It would suck to be forced to leave the table after being card dead for an hour (30 hands). Live poker is slow. It could be run as a normal game with a starting table and a waiting list. People will naturally bust out and have breaks.
I would expect at least 15 playable hands from the 30 ... :)
-
Obv min buy in 100x...
-
Obv min buy in 100x...
was just about to say no shortdonkers
also not keen on being forced to leave a cash game by voting or whatever other means, should be optional for the player
-
I think this will run fine without eliminating players or voting off. Would set a minimum of 100xBB but cap at 200xBB
-
I think this will run fine without eliminating players or voting off. Would set a minimum of 100xBB but cap at 200xBB
OK, I have no interest in this personally but if this is supposed to be some sort of objective competition then it would only make sense that everyone start with the same amount.
100BB seems logical.
-
I think this will run fine without eliminating players or voting off. Would set a minimum of 100xBB but cap at 200xBB
OK, I have no interest in this personally but if this is supposed to be some sort of objective competition then it would only make sense that everyone start with the same amount.
100BB seems logical.
It"s cash. Doesn"t have to be the same amount imo, just within parameters, ie 100-200x. People can top up any time they want so restrictions shouldnt be made on buy-ins.
-
Gets more interesting >100bb deep especially if straddled etc.
-
I think this will run fine without eliminating players or voting off. Would set a minimum of 100xBB but cap at 200xBB
but then you are only opening the game to first come first served who could potentially sit until the table closes and never leave - I would have thought that if making the game available to all, you would need to ensure some sort of player rotation.
-
I think this will run fine without eliminating players or voting off. Would set a minimum of 100xBB but cap at 200xBB
OK, I have no interest in this personally but if this is supposed to be some sort of objective competition then it would only make sense that everyone start with the same amount.
100BB seems logical.
It"s cash. Doesn"t have to be the same amount imo, just within parameters, ie 100-200x. People can top up any time they want so restrictions shouldnt be made on buy-ins.
But if this thing is supposed to "prove" something then you have to have standard and objective criteria that apply to all....otherwise it"s just a normal cash game that could break out any time.
-
Cash sucks if everyone has 100x. Also, what if the table fish has 300x and I want to top-up...this should obv be allowed. The beauty of cash is that u can reach into ur pocket again and again, so theres no point restricting buy-ins (to a certain degree). The difference between this idea, and other random cash games is that it would be 100% apat players and have a competitive element to it (most profit wins). Cash doesnt have objective criteria for all - thats the beauty of it.
-
Cash sucks if everyone has 100x. Also, what if the table fish has 300x and I want to top-up...this should obv be allowed. The beauty of cash is that u can reach into ur pocket again and again, so theres no point restricting buy-ins (to a certain degree). The difference between this idea, and other random cash games is that it would be 100% apat players and have a competitive element to it (most profit wins). Cash doesnt have objective criteria for all - thats the beauty of it.
Yep was about to say pretty much exactly the same thing.
The only thing that "proves" anything in cash is who makes a profit and who doesn"t. WE could try and get this going in Cardiff I guess?
-
The difference between this idea, and other random cash games is that it would be 100% apat players and have a competitive element to it (most profit wins). Cash doesnt have objective criteria for all - thats the beauty of it.
Some fish buys in for £50, doubles up and skedaddles...he"s up 100%.
Some fish buys in for £50, some shark buys in for £200 and eats fish...shark is only up 25%.
They"re both up the same £50...so it doesn"t "prove" anything.
No reason not to make it an APAT only table...the casino probably wouldn"t have any objections to making it a private game...but as a "competition"...I just don"t see it.
...but like I said, it"s not for me....unless we can play PLO8! ;D
-
Its not judged in % of stack sizes won....its judged on £ won.
You may not be able to see it as a competition, but many people seem eager to get it going, and the competitive cash games such as the big game and million dollar cash game have pretty much revolutionised tv poker. In these shows, there are no buy-in restrictions as it goes against what cash games are about. I dnt understand how a 100-250x buy-in would be a problem or negative at all...
-
I"ve been waiting for the post where someone asks who is an APAT member and how can people be excluded when everyone is a member as soon as they play. I hope Stuart raises this question soon so I can watch the various discussions merge into one and go round in circles - haven"t got much planned for this weekend.......
-
I"ve been waiting for the post where someone asks who is an APAT member and how can people be excluded when everyone is a member as soon as they play. I hope Stuart raises this question soon so I can watch the various discussions merge into one and go round in circles - haven"t got much planned for this weekend.......
Easily avoidable if u set the starting table and initial waiting list before-hand through people that apply on a forum thread. If people that show up on the day wish to play, they can put their name on the list but it will be low down.
-
Surely it has to be % of profit, rather then just actual amount won, as if your not having a standard buy in that just suits people with a bigger bankroll who can afford to buy in for more and therefore have a larger stack to double up (for example)
-
Won"t be too much of an issue if the buy-in is capped at 200/250x. Its effectively recording bb/100. What if people go bust and rebuy a few times? Thats y all the televised games record $ won. It would suck being penalised for buying in deeper, or having motivation not to top-up.
-
Surely it has to be % of profit, rather then just actual amount won, as if your not having a standard buy in that just suits people with a bigger bankroll who can afford to buy in for more and therefore have a larger stack to double up (for example)
This is weighted in favour of the shortstackers then...see my example above....it won"t prove anything.
Just have an APAT table, have a laugh and play some cards....no need to treat it as a "competition".
-
Surely it has to be % of profit, rather then just actual amount won, as if your not having a standard buy in that just suits people with a bigger bankroll who can afford to buy in for more and therefore have a larger stack to double up (for example)
This is weighted in favour of the shortstackers then...see my example above....it won"t prove anything.
Just have an APAT table, have a laugh and play some cards....no need to treat it as a "competition".
Same could be said about anything. People want to treat it as a "competition" as its a new format for people to compete in. It hasnt been done before and would be something new and exciting. While u obv do not want to take part in it, many others would like to...
-
Surely it has to be % of profit, rather then just actual amount won, as if your not having a standard buy in that just suits people with a bigger bankroll who can afford to buy in for more and therefore have a larger stack to double up (for example)
This is weighted in favour of the shortstackers then...see my example above....it won"t prove anything.
Just have an APAT table, have a laugh and play some cards....no need to treat it as a "competition".
This would also be my preference by the way :)
-
Surely it has to be % of profit, rather then just actual amount won, as if your not having a standard buy in that just suits people with a bigger bankroll who can afford to buy in for more and therefore have a larger stack to double up (for example)
This is weighted in favour of the shortstackers then...see my example above....it won"t prove anything.
Just have an APAT table, have a laugh and play some cards....no need to treat it as a "competition".
This - keep it simple
-
Surely it has to be % of profit, rather then just actual amount won, as if your not having a standard buy in that just suits people with a bigger bankroll who can afford to buy in for more and therefore have a larger stack to double up (for example)
This is weighted in favour of the shortstackers then...see my example above....it won"t prove anything.
Just have an APAT table, have a laugh and play some cards....no need to treat it as a "competition".
This - keep it simple
You playing it then?
-
Surely it has to be % of profit, rather then just actual amount won, as if your not having a standard buy in that just suits people with a bigger bankroll who can afford to buy in for more and therefore have a larger stack to double up (for example)
This is weighted in favour of the shortstackers then...see my example above....it won"t prove anything.
Just have an APAT table, have a laugh and play some cards....no need to treat it as a "competition".
When you say it "won"t prove anything" - the idea wasn"t to try to prove something - what does an MTT prove? In an MTT Someone wins it - the others cash and the rest don"t ... it doesn"t prove anything ...
A cash game would be interesting - just report the +/- : If fish want to donk their big stacks great : Create some parameters to make it playable : Create a player/waiting list on the forum : If a "local" wants to play then great but they join the bottom of the waiting list ... and maybe they then "join" APAT going forward.
Can 888 be involved in some way - I am sure they would enjoy the cash traffic etc ...
L
-
Can 888 be involved in some way - I am sure they would enjoy the cash traffic etc ...
Hold in online? ;D
-
Can 888 be involved in some way - I am sure they would enjoy the cash traffic etc ...
Hold in online? ;D
Cash championship online would be a lot of fun ... do both ... L
-
Min buy in 100x bb max 200bb
APAT only table
Play some pokahs
Simplez
Except I dont think Cardiff is a goer for me as I cant get back for work Monday 7am.
GL n enjoy it those who play