Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => General Discussion => Topic started by: AAroddersAA on October 04, 2010, 14:41:00 PM
-
Hi All
Saw a discussion on another Poker forum today about the payout structures of the APAT events. People generally seemed to think that the structure was too flat and too top heavy. Also players are not allowed to make deals to compensate for this.
What do the people to regularly play these events think? Are you happy with the current structure or would you like to see APAT move to a more traditional payout structure? Also would you like to see deal making allowed?
I understand the reasons APAT have given as to why it is setup this way but I am now wondering if, it was more traditional, APAT would attract even more players and get more people travelling to live events.
So what is the feeling? Is it OK as it is or would we like to see some changes looked at for next season? My own view is that the prize structure is pretty much OK but as deal making is allowed in the pro events, it should be OK in the amateur events as well. I understand there might be an issue with the added value though as well as we nee to complete the tournaments due to the importance of the medals.
Not sure if I have posted this in the right section of this forum, please move it if it is incorrect.
-
No deal making imo - think the payout structure could be a bit less flat but in a friendly organisation like APAT, deals would almost be expected by lots of people. If deals were to come into play, savers should not be included.
I read somewhere else that an organisation give everyone a red and a black card when deals are proposed. Reds are to accept, black are to decline. Cards are pushed forward face down and if there are any blacks in the pile...no deal. Think this is a good way of doing it, esp in such a tight knit organisation where people may not want to say no.
-
Just my humble opinion.
I like the payout structure as it is.The first prize makes it well worth entering and to take money off the top to give 50th place a tenner,doesnt appeal to me.I also like the no deals rule.It makes the final table all about going for the win,which imo makes it more exciting.If we were playing for hundreds of thousands as the pros do i may have a different opinion,but for apat i think it is spot on as is.Most apat events seem to sell out fairly quickly apart from the ones not in the uk,,but i guess theses events are about introducing apat to a wider audience.
-
-
I have no problem with the flat/top-heavy payout structure precisely for the reasons APAT have laid out.
APAT doesn"t really have any problems selling out it"s UK events and unless the number of available seats were to rise dramatically, I see no likelihood of any change in the pay-out structure.
Just because OTHER poker organisations have a more structured payout structure doesn"t make theirs better.
Overall, if I"m going to get a medal/top spot, I want to EARN it by better (or luckier) play not through trying to ladder up the payout structure by sitting back.
On the deal-making side, APAT have rules against it (for obvious reasons) but, in truth, there is very little they can do to stop it..other than throwing out bans if it"s discovered. I wouldn"t do it but others might...it smacks of collusion too much for me.
-
-
-
...and a flatter payout gradient is far preferable.
Preferable to you....but it sounds like we"d be arguing about a few quid either way. At the end of the day, we go in knowing the structure and people can vote with their feet/wallets.
I have no problem with a "stepped" structure rather than "sloped" one and, like I said, selling out the majority of the UK events hasn"t proved to be a huge problem so far.
-
I sorta disagree w/ ur reasoning Paulie. I play the events, but would still prefer the payout structure was different. Its one of the few events I dnt play for $, rather for the people, the tournament structure and enjoyment. A better payout structure would add to it for me, but I would not want to "vote with my feet" for the reasons mentioned.
-
Not talking about payouts from 27th onwards- just the final table payout structure. I have no idea why APAT differs in this area.
APAT is a "training ground" for amateurs. Make no sense why their final table payout structure should differ from any other major tournament in the world.
I think this would be part of APAt"s evolution. We"ve had tweaks to the stucture- also introduced antes. Think this is the next step.
-
I sorta disagree w/ ur reasoning Paulie. I play the events, but would still prefer the payout structure was different. Its one of the few events I dnt play for $, rather for the people, the tournament structure and enjoyment. A better payout structure would add to it for me, but I would not want to "vote with my feet" for the reasons mentioned.
My problem...if I can call it that...is that I feel that by changing the payout structures something else would change...I don"t know if I can verbalise it precisely, but I think we"d lose something by it...probably something in the people/enjoyment.
I disagree with your word "better"...just because something is traditional...doesn"t make it better.
-
APAT is a "training ground" for amateurs. Make no sense why their final table payout structure should differ from any other major tournament in the world.
It makes sense to me...and although I have deep and abiding love for APAT...it"s not a MAJOR tournament. Perhaps that"s EXACTLY the reason why it"s different...because we are amateurs and are playing for the medals...the cash is a bonus.
-
I sorta disagree w/ ur reasoning Paulie. I play the events, but would still prefer the payout structure was different. Its one of the few events I dnt play for $, rather for the people, the tournament structure and enjoyment. A better payout structure would add to it for me, but I would not want to "vote with my feet" for the reasons mentioned.
My problem...if I can call it that...is that I feel that by changing the payout structures something else would change...I don"t know if I can verbalise it precisely, but I think we"d lose something by it...probably something in the people/enjoyment.
I disagree with your word "better"...just because something is traditional...doesn"t make it better.
fwiw I dnt think you would lose ANY people, and I dnt see how it would alter enjoyment.
-
APAT is a "training ground" for amateurs. Make no sense why their final table payout structure should differ from any other major tournament in the world.
It makes sense to me...and although I have deep and abiding love for APAT...it"s not a MAJOR tournament. Perhaps that"s EXACTLY the reason why it"s different...because we are amateurs and are playing for the medals...the cash is a bonus.
Surely there would still be medals with a more traditional payout structure also? If the money doesnt matter, surely neither does the payout structure? Im sure the $ matters for a lot of ppl playing.
-
I sorta disagree w/ ur reasoning Paulie. I play the events, but would still prefer the payout structure was different. Its one of the few events I dnt play for $, rather for the people, the tournament structure and enjoyment. A better payout structure would add to it for me, but I would not want to "vote with my feet" for the reasons mentioned.
My problem...if I can call it that...is that I feel that by changing the payout structures something else would change...I don"t know if I can verbalise it precisely, but I think we"d lose something by it...probably something in the people/enjoyment.
I disagree with your word "better"...just because something is traditional...doesn"t make it better.
Spose I"m coming from the point of view that APAT has always been a starting place for those who are adapting to bigger deepstack comps and no matter what level of poker you play at you will never come across a payout structure which APAT has.
I have no idea how this would effect finals or whether it would in the future if things changed- I"ve not watched enough to know. However what I do know is that it is a huge disadvantage for the big stack having a flat payout structure to 3rd.
I understand playing ftw but sometimes it"s correct to ladder and it does have a profound effect psychologically on how people play. This whole facet to the game is completely missed with the current payout structure. All imo of course- as I"ve said I"ve probably not witnessed enough finals to have a qualified opinion on it. Maybe trial it at a couple of events next season?
-
APAT is a "training ground" for amateurs. Make no sense why their final table payout structure should differ from any other major tournament in the world.
It makes sense to me...and although I have deep and abiding love for APAT...it"s not a MAJOR tournament. Perhaps that"s EXACTLY the reason why it"s different...because we are amateurs and are playing for the medals...the cash is a bonus.
Disagree. No way people play for medals only. Why have an entry fee at all if this is the case? In fact take out any sort of financial incentive then see how over subscribed APAT is
-
Top ten percent get paid and most at the top. That"s fine by me, although the one time I did make the FT it did seem odd that 9th got the same as 4th. Great if you"re a short stack, but not ideal in terms of quality of play.
I"m just happy to get to the FT!! And a medal...!
-
My view. I don"t like the final table payout structure. Here"s the suggested payout structure that I believe Rod intended to cut and paste in his earlier post:
1st: 2700
2nd: 2000
3rd: 1500
4th: 1200
5th: 900
6th: 800
7th: 750
8th: 700
9th: 650
with the COC seat and medals added to the top three positions as appropriate.
My biggest gripe is not really with the payout structure though, rather with the "no deals" policy, which I"ll go on to address in a moment, but I actually think that if APAT wish to continue to discourage deals being discussed then a payout structure such as the one suggested would go some way to avoiding those issues.
Now deal making. For a start, I don"t think that allowing deals would in any way take away the desire of finalists to play for the win. As long as any deals were exclusive of the added seat and the medals/title had to be played for then I really can"t see how allowing the players to do a deal with the prizepool, if all wanted it, would affect that at all. If there are concerns about people not feeling able to be the sole dissenter to a deal and being pressurised to accept, then the red/black card idea is a good one. Let"s be clear - allowing deals to be made is not in anyway suggesting that deals HAVE to be made, but it does seem absurd that a bunch of adults can"t be allowed the autonomy to make a decison on what to do with the prizepool that they have paid into.
Also worth bearing in mind is that the pro and open events that have been running alongside the amateur APAT events in recent years have no such restrictions, with deals being allowed to be openly discussed and agreed by the players and I do have to say that I find that rather patronising as an amateur - it"s either an APAT rule or it"s not.
Finally, I"d encourage anyone who has a view on this issue to please contribute to this thread. I know this issue has been raised on and off in the past, but it"s always been discussed on the basis that it"s an APAT rule which we like or lump. I hope Rich doesn"t mind me linking the the original thread on blonde that prompted this one being started, which shows that APAT are open to listening to players" views on this subect.
http://blondepoker.com/forum/index.php?topic=49981.0
-
Just to post my take on this discussion so far.
I do feel that deals should be OK (the pro events allow them) but either way I would not stop playing the events as they are excellent. I don"t think too many APAT regs would vote with their feet for the same reason. I would like to hear the opinions of some APAT regulars. I completely understand what George is saying and I don"t disagree with him in a lot of it.
However one thing I would say is that the medals mean a LOT to players, George is right that removing the cash incentive would cause the number of players to drop but so would the removal of APAT medals.
APAT is not a starting place for everybody, some people are quite happy with playing at this level and play these events for the enjoyment of meeting up with the other players and because the events are run well, structured well and of fairly good standard of play. APAT is not just about the tournaments or the tour.
With this in mind I am sure we would not want to do is change anything that takes anything away from APAT, most importantly the people who turn up to every event. I am still interested in what a lot of the APAT members think of the structure as it makes for a good discussion. What do people actually prefer? Is it the existing payout structure or a more traditional one? Obviously most of us are going to play the events whatever as the payout structure is not the thing that defines if we do or not.
Also why are the structures different online to live?
-
Perhaps that"s EXACTLY the reason why it"s different...because we are amateurs and are playing for the medals...the cash is a bonus.
Disagree. No way people play for medals only.
I didn"t suggest that we were playing ONLY for the medals just the fact that I get a medal means a lot more than to me than the extra £200 or whatever that I got for beating the 4th place finisher.
Opinions differ...ofc.
-
Now deal making. For a start, I don"t think that allowing deals would in any way take away the desire of finalists to play for the win. As long as any deals were exclusive of the added seat and the medals/title had to be played for then I really can"t see how allowing the players to do a deal with the prizepool, if all wanted it, would affect that at all.
In general I don"t care about deal making as I"m only going to agree to something that at least benefits me as well (or better) than I deserve.
However, as long as you"re going to put a qualifier on it (such as no deals for the final 3 as has been mentioned above) then where do you draw a line? Not everyone will agree to the line being in the same place.
I"d much rather have two separate discussions...one for the Structure and a second for Deals.
-
I sorta disagree w/ ur reasoning Paulie. I play the events, but would still prefer the payout structure was different. Its one of the few events I dnt play for $, rather for the people, the tournament structure and enjoyment. A better payout structure would add to it for me, but I would not want to "vote with my feet" for the reasons mentioned.
My problem...if I can call it that...is that I feel that by changing the payout structures something else would change...I don"t know if I can verbalise it precisely, but I think we"d lose something by it...probably something in the people/enjoyment.
I disagree with your word "better"...just because something is traditional...doesn"t make it better.
fwiw I dnt think you would lose ANY people, and I dnt see how it would alter enjoyment.
I didn"t suggest that we would lose people, and as I said, I"m not entirely sure what we would lose...the APATness I guess would be the right word. If you make APAT the same as every other event then there is nothing special about it.
I like to think that what makes APAT the fun place and events we like to attend is that is IS different to the other alternatives.
-
Now deal making. For a start, I don"t think that allowing deals would in any way take away the desire of finalists to play for the win. As long as any deals were exclusive of the added seat and the medals/title had to be played for then I really can"t see how allowing the players to do a deal with the prizepool, if all wanted it, would affect that at all.
In general I don"t care about deal making as I"m only going to agree to something that at least benefits me as well (or better) than I deserve.
However, as long as you"re going to put a qualifier on it (such as no deals for the final 3 as has been mentioned above) then where do you draw a line? Not everyone will agree to the line being in the same place.
I"d much rather have two separate discussions...one for the Structure and a second for Deals.
perhaps I didn"t word it very well - it was just a suggestion that the money could be dealt with separately from the titles/medals (eg, 3 players left, all roughly the same chip stacks agree to take 1/3 of the prizepool left each and play on for position + added seat). No, not everyone will agree, but that"s why discussion is good!
-
I sorta disagree w/ ur reasoning Paulie. I play the events, but would still prefer the payout structure was different. Its one of the few events I dnt play for $, rather for the people, the tournament structure and enjoyment. A better payout structure would add to it for me, but I would not want to "vote with my feet" for the reasons mentioned.
My problem...if I can call it that...is that I feel that by changing the payout structures something else would change...I don"t know if I can verbalise it precisely, but I think we"d lose something by it...probably something in the people/enjoyment.
I disagree with your word "better"...just because something is traditional...doesn"t make it better.
fwiw I dnt think you would lose ANY people, and I dnt see how it would alter enjoyment.
I didn"t suggest that we would lose people, and as I said, I"m not entirely sure what we would lose...the APATness I guess would be the right word. If you make APAT the same as every other event then there is nothing special about it.
I like to think that what makes APAT the fun place and events we like to attend is that is IS different to the other alternatives.
I def do not agree that it is the payout structure that makes APAT different, or adds any "APATness." Pretty sure it"s the people who play the events and the attitude they bring to each one.
-
.....at least means those who make the second day make a bit to cover their expenses for playing.
This was an interesting point which sort of got overlooked in all the kerfuffle and is deserving of some attention IMO.
I do think that the number of people brought back on the second day needs to be re-examined. It is disheartening to have to come back on Day 2 and not make any money. It"s happened more than once.
I know it"s something Tighty, Des and Leigh are aware of but perhaps playing a little longer to make sure would mean that those who bust out without a cash can at least plan a little bit better for the next day.
-
perhaps I didn"t word it very well - it was just a suggestion that the money could be dealt with separately from the titles/medals (eg, 3 players left, all roughly the same chip stacks agree to take 1/3 of the prizepool left each and play on for position + added seat). No, not everyone will agree, but that"s why discussion is good!
I agree....discussion is good.
APAT will do what APAT will do...but we do know that they take opinions on board. My only concern (if you will) about the deal making is that it devalues (at least to my mind) the achievement in winning.
Perhaps I"m alone in this (or just the voice of the otherwise silent majority), I don"t know...but there"d always be a nagging thought in my mind about a winner who"d done a deal to take 1st.
-
I def do not agree that it is the payout structure that makes APAT different, or adds any "APATness." Pretty sure it"s the people who play the events and the attitude they bring to each one.
You"re taking the whole thing out of context..or at least extrapolating one comment to your interpretation of what I"m saying.
The different structure DOES add to the APATness because it sets us apart from the rest. Is APAT all about the people and attitude...of course...but by changing the things that make APAT what it is to conform with "traditional" tournaments...you will change the attitude of the people and that leads into changing the APATness.
If it"s "just another tournament"....then it"s not APAT anymore..it"s an "insert generic name" tournament.
Seriously, I"m NOT against change...it"s changing to confirm just because "we"re not the same" that isn"t a good enough reason for me.
-
I def do not agree that it is the payout structure that makes APAT different, or adds any "APATness." Pretty sure it"s the people who play the events and the attitude they bring to each one.
You"re taking the whole thing out of context..or at least extrapolating one comment to your interpretation of what I"m saying.
The different structure DOES add to the APATness because it sets us apart from the rest. Is APAT all about the people and attitude...of course...but by changing the things that make APAT what it is to conform with "traditional" tournaments...you will change the attitude of the people and that leads into changing the APATness.
If it"s "just another tournament"....then it"s not APAT anymore..it"s an "insert generic name" tournament.
Seriously, I"m NOT against change...it"s changing to confirm just because "we"re not the same" that isn"t a good enough reason for me.
Fair enough and I get where u r coming from. Then again, being different for the sake of being different makes no real sense. Have to remember that things are "the norm" for a reason. I also have to disagree that changing the payout structure would change the attitude of the people.
Some people have given good reasons for changing structure, so its not change for the sake of it. It is demoralising being paid the same for 4th and 9th. I dnt wana sound like Im angry and against the old structure - love APAT events and what they bring for the table, just feel there is always room for improvement.
-
Correct me if I"m wrong but the payout structure doesn"t contribute one iota to APATness? And APATness doesn"t mean changing the goalposts of how poker should work does it?
-
Correct me if I"m wrong but the payout structure doesn"t contribute one iota to APATness?
OK...you"re wrong!
And APATness doesn"t mean changing the goalposts of how poker should work does it?
I don"t see it as changing the goalposts..I see it as a different set of goalposts on a different playing field playing the same game....but, hey, that"s just me....and I haven"t been to Specsavers in a while. ;D
Come on folks...have a say!
Agree with me...don"t agree with me...don"t be silent.
-
perhaps I didn"t word it very well - it was just a suggestion that the money could be dealt with separately from the titles/medals (eg, 3 players left, all roughly the same chip stacks agree to take 1/3 of the prizepool left each and play on for position + added seat). No, not everyone will agree, but that"s why discussion is good!
I agree....discussion is good.
APAT will do what APAT will do...but we do know that they take opinions on board. My only concern (if you will) about the deal making is that it devalues (at least to my mind) the achievement in winning.
Perhaps I"m alone in this (or just the voice of the otherwise silent majority), I don"t know...but there"d always be a nagging thought in my mind about a winner who"d done a deal to take 1st.
Good post - I know you are not alone in your thinking here.
I would agree with this but couldn"t APAT say that deals can only be done for the cash. I don"t see a problem with this. As you say the gold medal provides an incentive all of its own so I believe the play would remain. You still have he GUKPT seat to play for as well.
I really don"t think you lose anything from these events by changing the payout structure, this is just my opinion of course, I am still new to APAT so if more established members have different opinions I a happy to be told I am totally wrong :-)
Just thought that if everybody was of the same kind of opinion (which does seem to be the case when he APAT regs post on Blonde) then maybe APAT would want to look at changing it next year, if not, then its still all good and we will all still be playing no doubt.
I do think it would be better to have a structure where everybody who comes back for day two is paid. The reality of this I think is that is easier said than done sometimes like with an event like WCOAP main event. It might be possible in some events though?
-
Correct me if I"m wrong but the payout structure doesn"t contribute one iota to APATness? And APATness doesn"t mean changing the goalposts of how poker should work does it?
Agree with all this.
-
I was lucky to come 3rd in the worlds this year for 4K, 4th place got 1.2K that for me is too big of a jump. When the final table started the only thing on my mind was 1st place but as we got down to 5 players left (I was the short stack at this point) my goal was 3rd place, and I hung on. Now if the pay structure was different (not as big a step as 2.8K) then my play could/would have been different.
For making deals none was offered by me are anybody else, but given the difference off 1.2K for 4th and 9K for 1st and if I was offered a deal then I would have to consider it. Rightly or wrongly
I played in a local tournament, 180 runners when we got down to 16 players someone asked for a deal, only 1 refused. :D
-
Just thought that if everybody was of the same kind of opinion (which does seem to be the case when he APAT regs post on Blonde) then maybe APAT would want to look at changing it next year, if not, then its still all good and we will all still be playing no doubt.
I agree that if EVERYONE (or at least a significant majority) were in favour of changing it then it should be done. Polling the membership is going to be tough though.
It"s only the loudest voices (of which I am unashamedly one) that are being heard at the moment..the same is true on Blonde (I know...I"m lurking there too).
-
The structure Claw posted was my suggestion. It wasn"t thoroughly thought out (%s might be slightly off) but it illustrates the point. Will repeat the post for those who don"t read blonde.
(This is only really concerning the 9th-4th being paid the same thing)
The sample on their site is:
1st: 3500
2nd: 2500
3rd: 1500
4th-9th: 700
1st place gets 5 times what 4th place gets. Even DTD (who i think are maybe too top heavy at times) isn"t that harsh. 3rd gets more than twice as much as 4th!
I"ve just off the top of my head made up what I think would be a flatter payout structure using the same amounts of money:
1st: 2700
2nd: 2000
3rd: 1500
4th: 1200
5th: 900
6th: 800
7th: 750
8th: 700
9th: 650
For me that"s much better. Obviously first isn"t as much but you say it"s not all about the money in these events. Using such a structure I think people would be more likely to play for the win and there probably wouldn"t be much talk of deals.
-
Just thought that if everybody was of the same kind of opinion (which does seem to be the case when he APAT regs post on Blonde) then maybe APAT would want to look at changing it next year, if not, then its still all good and we will all still be playing no doubt.
I agree that if EVERYONE (or at least a significant majority) were in favour of changing it then it should be done. Polling the membership is going to be tough though.
It"s only the loudest voices (of which I am unashamedly one) that are being heard at the moment..the same is true on Blonde (I know...I"m lurking there too).
Yep, I agree 100% - and to be fair there are never any complaints about the payout structure at he events themselves which suggest that the most important people (ie the people who actually play the events) are happy. I am guessing we will get some more opinions tonight when more people log on and read the thread.
Don"t expect many of them to be silent either :-)
-
Yep, I agree 100% - and to be fair there are never any complaints about the payout structure at he events themselves which suggest that the most important people (ie the people who actually play the events) are happy.
that"s debatable really. I"d be surprised if any regular APATers, whatever their personal views, would feel comfortable raising the issue of a deal at a final table knowing that it is frowned upon by APAT. I certainly wouldn"t feel comfortable bringing it up, unless I personally knew everyone else involved and that they were open to the idea - those conditions are unlikely ever to be met (getting to a final for a start!). Even then I"d imagine any discussions would be done "behind the scenes" - it seems a shame that that would have to happen though for a bunch of players that want to chop the money to be able to do it.
There is a problem with knowing what the majority of players would prefer though. It"s safe to say that the views of the majority of APAT members/players on this subject are unknown, but finding out what the general preference is isn"t logistically easy. Threads like this are a great start though, and hopefully lots of people will put their two penneth in whatever their view.
-
Yep, I agree 100% - and to be fair there are never any complaints about the payout structure at he events themselves which suggest that the most important people (ie the people who actually play the events) are happy.
that"s debatable really. I"d be surprised if any regular APATers, whatever their personal views, would feel comfortable raising the issue of a deal at a final table knowing that it is frowned upon by APAT. I certainly wouldn"t feel comfortable bringing it up, unless I personally knew everyone else involved and that they were open to the idea - those conditions are unlikely ever to be met (getting to a final for a start!). Even then I"d imagine any discussions would be done "behind the scenes" - it seems a shame that that would have to happen though for a bunch of players that want to chop the money to be able to do it.
There is a problem with knowing what the majority of players would prefer though. It"s safe to say that the views of the majority of APAT members/players on this subject are unknown, but finding out what the general preference is isn"t logistically easy. Threads like this are a great start though, and hopefully lots of people will put their two penneth in whatever their view.
This
-
my view
First off, I will continue to play as many APAT events as is humanly possible (whatever the payouts)
I personally think the that we should play day one down to the money (at whatever point that is)
I think that the final table payout structure could be better. (however not overly ar$ed about it, but I would welcome the change along the lines of CF"s post)
If deals were allowed I am not sure how you would continue with only medals/added value cos when the pressure is off play would inevitably change totally. So to nail my colours to the mast I believe no deals is correct.
APAT is and will always be, for me anyway, about the people whatever the concensus of opinion, I have no fears that any change will either decrease or increase interest.
Summary of changes I would like
1. Day two in the money
2. Change the FT payouts
3. No deals oops not a change
4. 50% off all alcoholic drinks
-
1. Day two in the money
2. Change the FT payouts
3. No deals
4. 50% off all alcoholic drinks
Just like this. Although perhaps #4 might be a step too far..... but #1 to #3 are exactly where I would like to see it go, if change is to happen.
-
1. Day two in the money
2. Change the FT payouts
3. No deals
4. 50% off all alcoholic drinks
Just like this. Although perhaps #4 might be a step too far..... but #1 to #3 are exactly where I would like to see it go, if change is to happen.
Would be nice to get views from those who have finalled and won on the FT structure
Also why doesn"t the online payout structures mirror the live ones?
-
The two issues are (i) the payout structure and (ii) deal making
(i) The Payout Structure
I don"t mind the payout structure as it is but...
IIRC one of the key principles of this payout structure was to discourage laddering up the places and encourage people to play for the win.
But in practice a lot of APAT final tables have been played tightly with a lot of tight players on, if you add to this the argument that the extra positions should give you an extra reward then I can see a pretty strong argument for changing the payouts.
(ii) Deal Making
IMO there"s a strong argument for changing the official APAT stance on this as well.
But with safeguards to protect APAT, it"s members and the sponsors, maybe with the introduction of a standard. APAT deal for example.
Obviously the added value, the medals and the trophy would have to be excluded from any deal making.
To make sure that this doesn"t too adversely affect the players left something like 10% of the total left should be reserved for the winner - the remainder shared out by chip count.
The black/red card deal making idea is a good one.
And finally deal making would only be allowed after the tournament reaches a certain level to ensure that any premature early talk of deals doesn"t unnecessarily slow down the table.
-
Would be nice to get views from those who have finalled and won on the FT structure
Ahem....well, I have Finalled...twice. Never won one...yet! ;D
-
1. Day two in the money
2. Change the FT payouts
3. No deals
4. 50% off all alcoholic drinks
Just like this. Although perhaps #4 might be a step too far..... but #1 to #3 are exactly where I would like to see it go, if change is to happen.
You want more than 50% off? This is a major handicap to The Duke imo, he would be morally outraged if he left the bar to play poker.
On a serious note great to get opinions of two long standing and much respected APAT members. I do see the concern about the play changing if you allow deals but believe the fact we have all of the added value, GUKPT seat, CoC seat and the Gold Medal would still encourage people to play for the win, which was the whole point in the payout structure to begin with.
More opinions for more APAT players would be great.
-
I was a 4th place finisher this year and was happy with the pay structure,,dont change it imo,,i like top heavy,,and NO DEALS for me,,,do agree that day 1 should play down to the money when possible
-
Would be nice to get views from those who have finalled and won on the FT structure
Ahem....well, I have Finalled...twice. Never won one...yet! ;D
As a mod maybe u can answer why the online tourneys have a more traditional payout structure?
-
Would be nice to get views from those who have finalled and won on the FT structure
Ahem....well, I have Finalled...twice. Never won one...yet! ;D
As a mod maybe u can answer why the online tourneys have a more traditional payout structure?
As a mod ??? he aint Paul Weller is he lol
-
Would be nice to get views from those who have finalled and won on the FT structure
Ahem....well, I have Finalled...twice. Never won one...yet! ;D
As a mod maybe u can answer why the online tourneys have a more traditional payout structure?
As a mod ??? he aint Paul Weller is he lol
too young to understand this joke!
-
LOL
-
1. Day two in the money
2. Change the FT payouts
3. No deals
Defo vote for Day 2 making the money. It is hard enough to do, and hitting the money at this stage is just rewards imo.
Imo no to deals, as APAT plays for medals too, so this would take that part of APAT away which is one of the good distinctions it has and why it is an excellent amatuer association.
As for any discussions around this and people not coming forward to air there views (I think it was posted within this thread that FT"s may feel uncomfy bringing this up) could APAT not organise a vote for S5 on whether pay structure is changed and /or deal making is allowed.
The vote could be set up the same as the Yearly APAT awards are, so noone knows who voted for what?
-
1. Day two in the money
2. Change the FT payouts
3. No deals
4. 50% off all alcoholic drinks
Just like this. Although perhaps #4 might be a step too far..... but #1 to #3 are exactly where I would like to see it go, if change is to happen.
Would be nice to get views from those who have finalled and won on the FT structure
Also why doesn"t the online payout structures mirror the live ones?
Sigh George that is like a dagger through my heart ;D ;D ;D
-
Would be nice to get views from those who have finalled and won on the FT structure
Ahem....well, I have Finalled...twice. Never won one...yet! ;D
As a mod maybe u can answer why the online tourneys have a more traditional payout structure?
I can explain that one quite simply. To use the same structure for the online events would require setting up a unique payment matrix with the software provider which was able to calculate the payouts dependant on the number of runners.
This is not possible to do with most software providers, hence having to go with the standard payout structures that the software use.
Ideally, the online games would mirror the live ones, and in the case of the added value, and lack of reg fees, we"ve got it closer this season, but the payouts is probably going to be one step we cannot resolve.
-
Would be nice to get views from those who have finalled and won on the FT structure
Ahem....well, I have Finalled...twice. Never won one...yet! ;D
As a mod maybe u can answer why the online tourneys have a more traditional payout structure?
I can explain that one quite simply. To use the same structure for the online events would require setting up a unique payment matrix with the software provider which was able to calculate the payouts dependant on the number of runners.
This is not possible to do with most software providers, hence having to go with the standard payout structures that the software use.
Ideally, the online games would mirror the live ones, and in the case of the added value, and lack of reg fees, we"ve got it closer this season, but the payouts is probably going to be one step we cannot resolve.
What about live Leigh? Are payout structures going to be discussed for season 5?
-
1. Day two in the money
2. Change the FT payouts
3. No deals
4. 50% off all alcoholic drinks
Just like this. Although perhaps #4 might be a step too far..... but #1 to #3 are exactly where I would like to see it go, if change is to happen.
Would be nice to get views from those who have finalled and won on the FT structure
Also why doesn"t the online payout structures mirror the live ones?
Sigh George that is like a dagger through my heart ;D ;D ;D
Duke I think have made day 2 twice so I am certainly not as qualified as you to discuss these matters!
-
Could APAT not organise a vote for S5 on whether pay structure is changed and /or deal making is allowed.
Just to emphasise...a POLL probably could be organised...I think the forum software would allow it but the result would only be an expression of the opinions of those who voted.
I think it highly unlikely that the results would represent the views of the majority of the members although, of course, it could be argued that this MIGHT be a representative sample....frankly I doubt it...but it"s possible.
THEN...even with all that, the poll isn"t binding on APAT to make the change....but I"m sure that they would take the results into consideration.
For what it"s worth:
1. Day Two for the money only.
2. Payouts - Not bothered either way
3. NO Deals
4. Only 50%?...that Duke....such a lightweight!
-
Would be nice to get views from those who have finalled and won on the FT structure
Ahem....well, I have Finalled...twice. Never won one...yet! ;D
As a mod maybe u can answer why the online tourneys have a more traditional payout structure?
I can explain that one quite simply. To use the same structure for the online events would require setting up a unique payment matrix with the software provider which was able to calculate the payouts dependant on the number of runners.
This is not possible to do with most software providers, hence having to go with the standard payout structures that the software use.
Ideally, the online games would mirror the live ones, and in the case of the added value, and lack of reg fees, we"ve got it closer this season, but the payouts is probably going to be one step we cannot resolve.
What about live Leigh? Are payout structures going to be discussed for season 5?
They are regularly discussed. Personally, I am of the opinion that the final table shouldn"t be flat (4th-9th) and there should be structure to it. I would still want the top three to be a significantly greater payout than the other ft"ers, as it is championship poker with medals, added value etc, but I"ve never really liked 4th getting the same as 9th.
As far as deals go, I"ve been present at plenty of APAT final tables, and I don"t often hear players even mention deals. Maybe that"s because they are all aware of APAT's stance on this, but players are often focused on the title, trophy, gold medal, GUKPT seat and significant media exposure.
I"m pretty sure deals were done at all of the APAT events that have allowed it to happen, either in the form of savers or chipcount split and play for the seat and medals.
Do deals happen on other similar tours, say the Sky Tour, or the Virgin Tour when that was running ?
-
I agree with most of the views in here - now that"s an annoying sentence!
However, both sides have good points and bad points. Going down Ger"s list...
1. Day 2 in the money: I agree. Most people book a hotel anyway for APAT weekends but some people may not do. I know that I wouldn"t be booking a hotel for Day 2 at any venues within 95 miles of my house (basically I can get home from DTD on the same day, that"s about my limit) unless I had to play day 2. Last thing I want to have to do is book a hotel that I can"t really afford or drive back again knowing I might not make the cash.
2. Change the FT payouts: Agree also. Mainly because I could beat 196 other players in a 200 man tourney and get the same amount of money as someone who beat 191. The final table is a completely different ball game and I think it"s unfair that 4th-9th get the same cash. Personally, I would pay 10% of the field, have the winner get 20% and take it from there for the rest.
3. No Deals: Disagree. It"s our money, why can"t we deal. I don"t wanna take the risk between 4th (£900) and 1st (£3500) if all 4 players have pretty much equal chips and the average is 10xbb, of losing the equivalent of £2600 on a badbeat/flip/etc. £2600 is a lot of money to me.
4. 50%... Feck replying to that one!
-
Ive been on 2 APAT final tables, and from a selfish pov i was glad 9th paid the same as 4th. (but that was when i came 9th)
but seriously, the payout structure for the final table is not great. 9th getting paid the same as 4th takes away a whole dynamic of tournment poker.
If you were a good player with a decant stack on the final table, then you should be looking to exploit the people who are laddering for the extra £100 or so. The middle stacks hanging on for the shortie to go broke etc. That is exactly what final tables are all about, looking for any edge to help yourself get into the top 3.
Like the no deal rules, because i think deals takes away some of the prestegie of winning. I assume it would be different if i was playing for life changing money, but havent had the chance yet.
-
Liking the thread everyone
Rest assured that the views will be taken into account when we formulate Season 5.
-
Not talking about payouts from 27th onwards- just the final table payout structure. I have no idea why APAT differs in this area.
APAT is a "training ground" for amateurs. Make no sense why their final table payout structure should differ from any other major tournament in the world.
I think this would be part of APAt"s evolution. We"ve had tweaks to the stucture- also introduced antes. Think this is the next step.
saw it was 4 pages. Read this far then stopped.
this is pretty much my opinion. I will only add this:
I think APAT players play for the win because they want to win, not because of the payout structure.
-
Great post and debate and we welcome everyone"s views on this subject. I thought Will brought something new to the discussion. Will watch with interest.
-
Interesting thred guys
Those of you who know me know that I am pretty blunt so here gos my two penny worth:=
Deal making is for (PxSSYS) er-hmm, all APATers over the seasons have gone for the win, so pls pls keep deal makin stamped out of APAT, Period. I am a big believer of jus going for it and winning.
Laddering is not in my nature. so Why change something that already works, APATs are mostly SELL OUT events and a consensus are people love the games.
win or bust out and go home boo hoo and take Dukie up on his 50% offer.
and finally agree with majority, play untill money on day 1, that way if i bust out, I can go out on the lash and not worry about playin the next day with a stonkin hangover.
if i had my way i would jus load up 1st prize with 90% of the money and jus get a trickle for the rest. Now that would really change the dynamics of the game. lol
-
but seriously, the payout structure for the final table is not great. 9th getting paid the same as 4th takes away a whole dynamic of tournment poker.
If you were a good player with a decant stack on the final table, then you should be looking to exploit the people who are laddering for the extra £100 or so. The middle stacks hanging on for the shortie to go broke etc. That is exactly what final tables are all about, looking for any edge to help yourself get into the top 3.
Like the no deal rules, because i think deals takes away some of the prestegie of winning. I assume it would be different if i was playing for life changing money, but havent had the chance yet.
I think this is pretty spot on - if APAT is there to help people make the step up then the final table should be similar to other tours. Coming 4th of 425 runners should be worth a lot more than 9th of 425. The current dynamics give you the incentive to throw short/medium stacks into the middle and get lucky once you reach the final table.
-
I think George2Loose raises an interesting point about the "training ground" for bigger comps. There"s no bigger comp where 9th-4th place pays the same money, so the final table dynamic is totally different to any of the comps you might be "training" yourself up for.
A more logical option for me would be to have a FT payout similar to the GUKPT events that the winners get awarded seats into. At least then the payout structure would be linked to the added value element of the events.
Not that any of this affects me anyway - I"m still awaiting a cash in a live APAT event!
-
I think this thread could be an epic,some very well put points and counter points.Interesting that both Des,Leigh and Richard have already added comments,as if this topic was already on the APAT agenda.The one thing that makes this organisation uniqe is that they listen and take on board members comments and suggestions,always ever moving APAT forward,i like it,wether i agree or disagree with the changes made they have always been open to debate.
Fwiw here"s my tuppence worth....
I have always thought APAT live events are way too top heavy on the money side,with 9th to 4th getting the same pay out.I still don"t quite equate how making this flat payout impels people to go for the win.People want to win an APAT event full stop,the trophy,gold medal,Gukpt seat,COC seat,ranking pts and of course the "significant media exposure" are enough of an incentive,surely?.Then to get the lions share of the prizepool,imo,distracts from what "ameuter" is all about.
Everybody knows how tough it is to make a day 2 in any event let alone an f/t so i would like to see the top 3 payouts filtered down to reflect such achievements.
There have been numerous occassions where playing down to the money on day 1 has been a viable option and has never been more than 1-2 levels away.For the sake of people having to return on day 2 and not cash to claw back added petrol/hotel costs i"m sure they wouldn"t mind playing an extra level or 2.
Deal making,i think someone has already mentioned that having a standard f/t payout virtually negates against any deal making,it just wouldn"t be worth it.If people want to ladder that"s fine,as Will says its part of a final table dynamic who to exploit who to avoid.I witnessed Chan in Ireland clearly going ftw, fantastic,but i"m sure he could have applied more pressure on some had there been a payout structure to exploit.
So,
1, Better structured f/t payouts
2, No deals (see above)
3, Payouts start at people who make day 2.
would all get my vote.....if we were voting,which were not...but if.....
-
there is no way that deals have never been done it apat tournaments. at the moment they have to be done away from the table which isn`t great. by allowing them to be done in public and have the actual physical payouts reflect the done deal you`re removing the possibility of people being ripped off when someone wins a comp and then goes back on a deal.
the best post on the subject on the blonde thread for those who haven`t seen it
If the majority of APAT players are happy with the "no deals" policy, then why do you need a "no deals" policy? You only need one person to say no to a deal and it doesn"t happen.
If you [Tighty] are right then I doubt a deal would ever take place if they were allowed.
basically if you don"t want to deal then don"t deal. simple
-
I really want to add epically but I don"t think I can.
However, having made an FT (brag), I didn"t mind the flat structure and I wouldn"t mind a tiered one, but a tiered one that is flatter than most tournaments as some of the jumps are a bit steep.
-
I really want to add epically but I don"t think I can.
However, having made an FT (brag), I didn"t mind the flat structure and I wouldn"t mind a tiered one, but a tiered one that is flatter than most tournaments as some of the jumps are a bit steep.
can"t be any steeper than an APAT 4th to 3rd jump!
-
there is no way that deals have never been done it apat tournaments. at the moment they have to be done away from the table which isn`t great. by allowing them to be done in public and have the actual physical payouts reflect the done deal you`re removing the possibility of people being ripped off when someone wins a comp and then goes back on a deal.
the best post on the subject on the blonde thread for those who haven`t seen it
If the majority of APAT players are happy with the "no deals" policy, then why do you need a "no deals" policy? You only need one person to say no to a deal and it doesn"t happen.
If you [Tighty] are right then I doubt a deal would ever take place if they were allowed.
basically if you don"t want to deal then don"t deal. simple
They may well have happened but it would be unusual at the moment. In the WCOAP main event this year the jumps were huge, the biggest that APAT have ever had. There was a tournament break with 4 players left and doing a deal would have been easy, or at least one of the players could have offered one. It didn"t happen. Neither did it happen in Ireland. I would be VERY surprised if there has been a deal done at a final table this season in any of the UK events.
-
I"d prefer a more normal payout structure.
I think we should play down to the money on day 1 - I still shudder when I think of my Cardiff odyssey in season 3!
Happy with no deals but not really fussed either way so long as play carries on for the medals.
Compulsory footpath walk on tournament Fridays. Non-attendees disqualified.
-
An interesting thread with some very good points very well made.
Marty719 said "I def do not agree that it is the payout structure that makes APAT different, or adds any "APATness." Pretty sure it"s the people who play the events and the attitude they bring to each one." and I couldn"t agree more.
We all turn up on Saturday hoping to win, but what the heck it"s just like a family gathering and we have a good weekend whatever happens bad beats and all. It is the people and nothing else that makes APAT APAT, and yes we would still all turn up if no changes were made to the current pay out structure etc
So how can it be improved?
Making deals?
If this is not allowed then there will always be arguements wanting it. If it is allowed, then if any of those involved in the proposed deal can vote against it via the black / red card system, or something similar, then a deal will not take place. Therefore allowing deals seems to satisfy both "camps".
Money for Day 2"ers?
It makes sense that those who make day 2 are only those who make the money. You cannot register for the side game on the Sunday if you are still in the main event - you may be very low stacked and within an hour of day 2 starting you"re out, but too late to play in the Sunday event. You would know that unless you made the money in the main event that you could take part in the Sunday event or for those of us who take their partners with them, they could spent time on Sunday away from the casino exploring the local attractions. You"re either in the money or free to do what you want with Sunday.
I don"t think that the structure should be changed to square this circle, it would need a longer day 1, either starting earlier or playing later or both. I guess the casinos have some say in this?
Payment Structure.
I believe that the final table should be stepped from 9th to 4th at the cost of the first 3, even if it was only by £50 per position, if only on the basis that someone who came 4th should be rewarded more than the person who came 9th. I do not think that this would detract from the ethos of "going for the win".
Everyone who makes the final table is a competitive creature anyway and will still be trying to win, the difference between 9th and 4th prize money would only be a couple of hundred pounds, not like the WSOP main event where it would be £100,000"s where just sitting there playing fold"em could be life changing. It just gives 4th a financial reward over 9th, which seems to make sense to me
-
I haven"t cashed yet but Luton is going to be my third APAT event (3rd time lucky) ;D
Having read all the comments I will now give mine:
1. If pay only starts at 20 isn"t it a bit much to play down to that on day 1? I made day 2 at Luton last year and I think there was 34 of us when play stopped around 1am. Maybe you could play down to 27 (3 tables) with 21st-27th getting their buy-in value back!! (Thats only £525 off the prize fund based on a £75 buy-in)
2. I feel the prize fund should be different for 4th-9th.
example:
Position Current My Idea
4th £1200 £1600
5th £1200 £1400
6th £1200 £1200
7th £1200 £1100
8th £1200 £1000
9th £1200 £ 900
I know this is based on the World prize fund at DTD but obviously it can be adapted to suit the 200player events (total prize fund for these positions is the same)
3. I don"t think deals should be allowed, especially if the structure is tweeked 8)
-
there is no way that deals have never been done it apat tournaments. at the moment they have to be done away from the table which isn`t great. by allowing them to be done in public and have the actual physical payouts reflect the done deal you`re removing the possibility of people being ripped off when someone wins a comp and then goes back on a deal.
the best post on the subject on the blonde thread for those who haven`t seen it
If the majority of APAT players are happy with the "no deals" policy, then why do you need a "no deals" policy? You only need one person to say no to a deal and it doesn"t happen.
If you [Tighty] are right then I doubt a deal would ever take place if they were allowed.
basically if you don"t want to deal then don"t deal. simple
Ahem!! You could have credited the author. ::)
-
Please change to a more conventional payout structure.
And....
Please, please stop paying 1 x additional £75 place for each alternate that plays. Either -
If payout structure changes... just add it to the prize pool; or
If payout structure remains... aggregate the £75"s and pay additional prizes a little less than the existing bottom payout ie. if 20th pays £300 and there are 5 alternates, then have 21st pays £225 and 22nd pays £150.
I really cannot see why anyone would be happy to go away with just their entry fee... if you need you entry fee back that bad, stay at home!
And, and...
As for savers for the bubble boy? That is just wrong... just say NO!
-
Great post and debate and we welcome everyone"s views on this subject. I thought Will brought something new to the discussion. Will watch with interest.
Which part? Criticism of the payouts or support for "no deals"?
(I"m assuming Will is WYoung83?)
-
Please change to a more conventional payout structure.
And....
Please, please stop paying 1 x additional £75 place for each alternate that plays. Either -
If payout structure changes... just add it to the prize pool; or
If payout structure remains... aggregate the £75"s and pay additional prizes a little less than the existing bottom payout ie. if 20th pays £300 and there are 5 alternates, then have 21st pays £225 and 22nd pays £150.
I really cannot see why anyone would be happy to go away with just their entry fee... if you need you entry fee back that bad, stay at home!
This is exactly what was put in place for worlds main event, so I believe is already in place
-
My twopenneth... agree with these following points :
Better structured final table payouts, always thought it was wrong that 4th got the same as 9th, Will is spot on with "9th getting paid the same as 4th takes away a whole dynamic of tournment poker. If you were a good player with a decant stack on the final table, then you should be looking to exploit the people who are laddering for the extra £100 or so. The middle stacks hanging on for the shortie to go broke etc. That is exactly what final tables are all about, looking for any edge to help yourself get into the top 3"
No deals, as one of my best mates said at the final table in Edinburgh.. "its all about the win Des.. its all about the win" :)
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVj0795gkQA[/youtube]
Payouts start at people who make day two, although as all the venues always require a stay over for me and the Stockton massive it doesnt matter, it would make sense for more local players.
-
Ahem!! You could have credited the author. ::)
yeah, sorry. who was it?
-
Would be nice to get views from those who have finalled and won on the FT structure
Ahem....well, I have Finalled...twice. Never won one...yet! ;D
As a mod maybe u can answer why the online tourneys have a more traditional payout structure?
I can explain that one quite simply. To use the same structure for the online events would require setting up a unique payment matrix with the software provider which was able to calculate the payouts dependant on the number of runners.
This is not possible to do with most software providers, hence having to go with the standard payout structures that the software use.
Ideally, the online games would mirror the live ones, and in the case of the added value, and lack of reg fees, we"ve got it closer this season, but the payouts is probably going to be one step we cannot resolve.
What about live Leigh? Are payout structures going to be discussed for season 5?
They are regularly discussed. Personally, I am of the opinion that the final table shouldn"t be flat (4th-9th) and there should be structure to it. I would still want the top three to be a significantly greater payout than the other ft"ers, as it is championship poker with medals, added value etc, but I"ve never really liked 4th getting the same as 9th.
As ever I agree 100% with you Leigh!
Can we introduce this so that whoever came 4th in the recent Ireland tournament gets an extra slice of the cake?!
-
Please change to a more conventional payout structure.
And....
Please, please stop paying 1 x additional £75 place for each alternate that plays. Either -
If payout structure changes... just add it to the prize pool; or
If payout structure remains... aggregate the £75"s and pay additional prizes a little less than the existing bottom payout ie. if 20th pays £300 and there are 5 alternates, then have 21st pays £225 and 22nd pays £150.
I really cannot see why anyone would be happy to go away with just their entry fee... if you need you entry fee back that bad, stay at home!
This is exactly what was put in place for worlds main event, so I believe is already in place
I think you may have missed my point? Yes, the line you have highlighted is the way it is now (or at least it was the last time I played).
I, me, personnally, see no point in the min cash paying just your buy-in back.
90% of the field will go home with nothing, 10% will cash... thats"s just the way it is. Most people who have already booked and paid for a hotel for the night will go home with nothing, they know that when they decide to play. But surely, if you get into the money it should at least be double your buy-in, ideally three times and go some way to covering your expenses.
-
I have no problem with the flat/top-heavy payout structure precisely for the reasons APAT have laid out.
APAT doesn"t really have any problems selling out it"s UK events and unless the number of available seats were to rise dramatically, I see no likelihood of any change in the pay-out structure.
This is a total red herring... if APAT had started out with a more conventional payout structure it would still be in exactly the same strong position it is in today.
Just because OTHER poker organisations have a more structured payout structure doesn"t make theirs better.
Yes, it does.
Overall, if I"m going to get a medal/top spot, I want to EARN it by better (or luckier) play not through trying to ladder up the payout structure by sitting back.
Poker is a game where a players standard is ultimately measured by how much money they win and the length of time over which they continue to do so... not by how many medals or cups they have gathering dust on their mantelpeice.
On the deal-making side, APAT have rules against it (for obvious reasons)
What are the reasons?
but, in truth, there is very little they can do to stop it..other than throwing out bans if it"s discovered. I wouldn"t do it but others might...it smacks of collusion too much for me.
Deals = Collusion?? wtf is that all about?
Regards,
Alan
(Probably alone, on the outside of the tent, again, fml!!)
-
i thought apat was apat,,never knew it was a training ground for bigger events ????
Top heavy preferred,,,day 1 down to the money preferred,,,no deals preferred,,,once the deal is done lets go home,,,dont like that attitude,,,people do not play the same once the deal is done !!!
-
Payout I agree that a flatter payout would be good. I made an F.T. early season. I went for the win and ended up getting payed for fifth, the same amount as ninth got. :-\ Now had the structure had been flatter i would still have gone for the win from that point. So it would not have affected my strategy or my finishing position, however i would probably of nearly doubled my payout....on that occasion. I do have to add though, that the payout was furthest from my mind, 1st Pos(Title), Gold Medal and the added seat were my goals. If pay structure remains the same i won"t mind too much.
Day 2 Payouts I think it would be quite difficult on a regular basis to get down to payouts by the end of day one. Also there have been a number of times that very short stacks have come back to win money and medals. Sadly me not being one of them......as stated earlier, a lot of people travelling have booked their hotels prior to arrival, so why should we rush the tourneys so that more local people can decide whether or not to drive home or stay. If somebody has a a decent stack come 1 a.m. Why should they have to carry on for 2 or 3 levels longer at risk of making major mistakes(creeping in through tiredness) to appease those that want to either get a big stack or go home. Sorry to be blunt but,
Apat Two Day Event
Deals
I think i fall to the negative side on this one. My feelings are that especially with a more balanced structure, deals would not need to be made. Also as a sportsman i do want to win, i would not run a race with Phil T.C. and one and a half miles from the finish say,"shall we call it a draw, and share the spoils"? That may seem a strange analogy but it"s not. The mindset is to win, be it poker, running or golf. I want to be first and without a step up from anybody else.
I also as a short stack would feel like a cheat if i were to increase my payout by dealing, and i certainly wouldn"t have the gaul to ask for one. Maybe i am just too soft or think differently to alot of other people. Yes, life changing moneys? ie £30k or £85k on a deal, a different thought approach may kick in. With regards to this:
there is no way that deals have never been done it apat tournaments. at the moment they have to be done away from the table which isn`t great. by allowing them to be done in public and have the actual physical payouts reflect the done deal you`re removing the possibility of people being ripped off when someone wins a comp and then goes back on a deal.
Should not be doing deals, they are against the rules of the tournament you have entered. Can"t really moan about somone not standing up to an illegal deal. I know your just making a point as to why you think deals should be allowed. ;D
I too have fallen foul of deals, Massive chip leader and could have pressured others into submission. I then agree a part deal just to be nice(because i"m a p#ssy), the casino then immediately up the blinds by 10x. Which now diminishes my stack by BB?? becomes a shovefest, i end up 3rd and top 2 chopping for most of the rest.. Well ripped off, no mention of increase when deal was suggested..suggested?.. i have to say badgered into one, some people will just not accept no for an answer. Yes it"s easy to say no, but some people harp on and in groups to bully the big stack, or maybe that"s just where i play. :(
Anyways. Flatter......Yes
Day 2.........No
Deals.........No
50%.........Yes, why not. ;D ;D
-
Overall, if I"m going to get a medal/top spot, I want to EARN it by better (or luckier) play not through trying to ladder up the payout structure by sitting back.
Poker is a game where a players standard is ultimately measured by how much money they win and the length of time over which they continue to do so... not by how many medals or cups they have gathering dust on their mantelpeice.
True but in APAT the titles and the medals do mean a lot. If yo are just talking about money won then tournaments mean very little it is all about cash games. Whilst I strongly agree with this it is a whole different discussion, I think it is safe to say that when playing APAT tournament the medals mean as much as the money (or come pretty close).
I would say this is something that is special about APAT
I too have fallen foul of deals, Massive chip leader and could have pressured others into submission. I then agree a part deal just to be nice(because i"m a p#ssy), the casino then immediately up the blinds by 10x. Which now diminishes my stack by BB?? becomes a shovefest, i end up 3rd and top 2 chopping for most of the rest.. Well ripped off, no mention of increase when deal was suggested..suggested?.. i have to say badgered into one, some people will just not accept no for an answer. Yes it"s easy to say no, but some people harp on and in groups to bully the big stack, or maybe that"s just where i play. :(
If this happens then I would have to agree with no deals. If making a deal turns the game into a crapshoot then that is bad. Surely it is possible though for a deal to be made for the cash and to allow play to continue for the medal and added value.
We are all in agreement the medals are important and we do not want to affect that. I am just not at all convinced flattening the pyout structure would do that.
To try and sum up what he members seem to be saying here:-
1) We would like a flatter payout structure in an ideal world, although nobody is too bothered if it stays the same
2) We certainly like the no deals rule so that should stay (not my personal opinion but reading thread it seems to be what most people like).
3) We want the medals to retain their prestige - and deals may affect this hence we do"t like them.
4) Most importantly APAT is about meeting up with people who you only see every now and again and having a couple of beers and a good weekend playing a well run poker tournament that feels like it means something. This needs to be preserved whatever.
I am really impressed by the points made by some respected members of APAT and the way they have been put across. I have no doubt that the views will be taken into account by APAT when planning next season
-
i thought apat was apat,,never knew it was a training ground for bigger events ????
Top heavy preferred,,,day 1 down to the money preferred,,,no deals preferred,,,once the deal is done lets go home,,,dont like that attitude,,,people do not play the same once the deal is done !!!
Now that is true.
But to be honest I attend APAT events not to worry about the money,- my wife does enough of that for me,- but for the craic!
See you at Luton
Dead Money
-
We are all in agreement the medals are important and we do not want to affect that. I am just not at all convinced flattening the pyout structure would do that.
To try and sum up what he members seem to be saying here:-
1) We would like a flatter payout structure in an ideal world, although nobody is too bothered if it stays the same
2) We certainly like the no deals rule so that should stay (not my personal opinion but reading thread it seems to be what most people like).
3) We want the medals to retain their prestige - and deals may affect this hence we don"t like them.
4) Most importantly APAT is about meeting up with people who you only see every now and again and having a couple of beers and a good weekend playing a well run poker tournament that feels like it means something. This needs to be preserved whatever.
I am really impressed by the points made by some respected members of APAT and the way they have been put across. I have no doubt that the views will be taken into account by APAT when planning next season
Steve...I think you nailed it on the head....thanks for kicking this off.
-
We are all in agreement the medals are important and we do not want to affect that. I am just not at all convinced flattening the pyout structure would do that.
To try and sum up what he members seem to be saying here:-
1) We would like a flatter payout structure in an ideal world, although nobody is too bothered if it stays the same
2) We certainly like the no deals rule so that should stay (not my personal opinion but reading thread it seems to be what most people like).
3) We want the medals to retain their prestige - and deals may affect this hence we don"t like them.
4) Most importantly APAT is about meeting up with people who you only see every now and again and having a couple of beers and a good weekend playing a well run poker tournament that feels like it means something. This needs to be preserved whatever.
I am really impressed by the points made by some respected members of APAT and the way they have been put across. I have no doubt that the views will be taken into account by APAT when planning next season
Steve...I think you nailed it on the head....thanks for kicking this off.
LOL... that"s that put to bed for another year then. ::)
-
We are all in agreement the medals are important and we do not want to affect that. I am just not at all convinced flattening the pyout structure would do that.
To try and sum up what he members seem to be saying here:-
1) We would like a flatter payout structure in an ideal world, although nobody is too bothered if it stays the same
2) We certainly like the no deals rule so that should stay (not my personal opinion but reading thread it seems to be what most people like).
3) We want the medals to retain their prestige - and deals may affect this hence we don"t like them.
4) Most importantly APAT is about meeting up with people who you only see every now and again and having a couple of beers and a good weekend playing a well run poker tournament that feels like it means something. This needs to be preserved whatever.
I am really impressed by the points made by some respected members of APAT and the way they have been put across. I have no doubt that the views will be taken into account by APAT when planning next season
Steve...I think you nailed it on the head....thanks for kicking this off.
LOL... that"s that put to bed for another year then. ::)
1. There seems to be a consensus that people want at least a nominal difference in prize money for each position rather than completely flat between 9th and 4th
2. There seems to be a consensus against allowing deals, however as has been pointed out - if no one wants deals, there"s no need to discourage deals.
So both of these points could be changed.
Nothing needs to change - it just could do.
-
(Probably alone, on the outside of the tent, again, fml!!)
far from it I reckon. I"d say I"m pretty much in the same sleeping bag :D
-
(Probably alone, on the outside of the tent, again, fml!!)
far from it I reckon. I"d say I"m pretty much in the same sleeping bag :D
Ooo-er! :o
-
(Probably alone, on the outside of the tent, again, fml!!)
far from it I reckon. I"d say I"m pretty much in the same sleeping bag :D
I think you might find that it"s a bigger tent/sleeping bag than you think.
It might even be APAT branded. ;)
-
(Probably alone, on the outside of the tent, again, fml!!)
far from it I reckon. I"d say I"m pretty much in the same sleeping bag :D
I think you might find that it"s a bigger tent/sleeping bag than you think.
It might even be APAT branded. ;)
Make some room
-
I have no problem with the flat/top-heavy payout structure precisely for the reasons APAT have laid out.
APAT doesn"t really have any problems selling out it"s UK events and unless the number of available seats were to rise dramatically, I see no likelihood of any change in the pay-out structure.
This is a total red herring... if APAT had started out with a more conventional payout structure it would still be in exactly the same strong position it is in today.
Just because OTHER poker organisations have a more structured payout structure doesn"t make theirs better.
Yes, it does.
Overall, if I"m going to get a medal/top spot, I want to EARN it by better (or luckier) play not through trying to ladder up the payout structure by sitting back.
Poker is a game where a players standard is ultimately measured by how much money they win and the length of time over which they continue to do so... not by how many medals or cups they have gathering dust on their mantelpeice.
On the deal-making side, APAT have rules against it (for obvious reasons)
What are the reasons?
but, in truth, there is very little they can do to stop it..other than throwing out bans if it"s discovered. I wouldn"t do it but others might...it smacks of collusion too much for me.
Deals = Collusion?? wtf is that all about?
Regards,
Alan
(Probably alone, on the outside of the tent, again, fml!!)
Glad you did it Alan I could not be bothered...
1: Change payout structure 4th - 9th.. (Maybe even pay top 27 and have 3 tables last day as was suggested)
2: Deals possible (but using the method DTD do by chipstacks)
3: Duke only 50% drop no way..
4: Add alternates cash onto payout not pay £75 per person (might have been changed now)
On the whole, payout & medals make no difference to me (probs never got any thats why, I should change my attitude), but the APAT weekend is that, a weekend away where I get to see people I have not seen for a while, almost call it a holiday weekend because I dont manage to get away much anymore, but that does not mean that I agree with the current payouts. I would play them anyway..
I also whilst typing thought of a comment that was made earlier in the thread about "APAT being oversubscribed and that must or does mean that it is doing something right".. I agree it is doing something right, but some people on the forum should remember that is only a £75 tournament and it has some very good added value with a great bunch of tournament people and that might be the reason its oversubscribed, not because its doing it right..
Final point to people to think about.. APAT tournaments have always been a sell out month after month from day it started, yet this season, seats have not always sold out straight away, I managed to get a friend of mine a seat in luton a week or more after it was available on betfair, in fact having just looked there are still seats available..!!!! As someone said earlier "people may be voting with their feet"
See you at luton, im getting so pissed on the Friday night...
More dead cash
Dafydd
-
Referring to Dukes suggestion of changes, I totally support his proposed amendment. There is (IMO) too bigger jump from 4th to 1st and for 4th to 9th to pay the same amount seems wrong. In fact (again IMO) seems it could have the reverse effect of wanting players to go for the win. Play gets looser as some take a punt at winning a big hand with poor play or a rag call, hoping to hit, knowing that if they bust out they get the same as 4th.
Whilst we are talking of amendments, I would like to raise the question of non-APAT players being allowed to play in OUR World Championships. (WCOAP)
I would like to suggest that all players in any WCOAP event must firstly be an APAT member and secondly, MUST have played at least one APAT Regional Main Event in that calender year.
This would do two things. Firstly it would encourage those who want to play in the WCOAP to join APAT and support the regional events throughout the year and also stop any "semi-Pro or Pro" rocking up and gatecrashing our Finale.
With a first prize in excess of £10k plus GPUKT seat, it seems unfair to allow non-members to participate. DTD attracts a large number of semi pro players who for a smallish stake could enjoy a very good payday.
Lets keep APAT for us Amateurs who support our tour.
-
(Probably alone, on the outside of the tent, again, fml!!)
far from it I reckon. I"d say I"m pretty much in the same sleeping bag :D
I think you might find that it"s a bigger tent/sleeping bag than you think.
It might even be APAT branded. ;)
Make some room
Enough already... I"m not used to having people agree with me [or at least openly admit to it]! Although I am getting a warm feeling all over... probably being in a sleeping bag with Claire. ;D
Wait a minute..... that"s why you others want in, isn"t it? Now feeling deflated. >:(
-
Whilst we are talking of amendments, I would like to raise the question of non-APAT players being allowed to play in OUR World Championships. (WCOAP)
IIRC by playing an APAT event you become a member of APAT therefore everyone who played the WCOAP was a member. Everyone has to have a first event sometime.
-
With a first prize in excess of £10k plus GPUKT seat, it seems unfair to allow non-members to participate. DTD attracts a large number of semi pro players who for a smallish stake could enjoy a very good payday.
It wouldn"t have been so rich without all those "new" members (they aren"t non-members, they are new members)
-
(Probably alone, on the outside of the tent, again, fml!!)
far from it I reckon. I"d say I"m pretty much in the same sleeping bag :D
I think you might find that it"s a bigger tent/sleeping bag than you think.
It might even be APAT branded. ;)
Make some room
Enough already... I"m not used to having people agree with me [or at least openly admit to it]! Although I am getting a warm feeling all over... probably being in a sleeping bag with Claire. ;D
Wait a minute..... that"s why you others want in, isn"t it? Now feeling deflated. >:(
Is there room for one more or should I bring me own sleeping bag?
-
Referring to Dukes suggestion of changes, I totally support his proposed amendment. There is (IMO) too bigger jump from 4th to 1st and for 4th to 9th to pay the same amount seems wrong. In fact (again IMO) seems it could have the reverse effect of wanting players to go for the win. Play gets looser as some take a punt at winning a big hand with poor play or a rag call, hoping to hit, knowing that if they bust out they get the same as 4th.
Whilst we are talking of amendments, I would like to raise the question of non-APAT players being allowed to play in OUR World Championships. (WCOAP)
I would like to suggest that all players in any WCOAP event must firstly be an APAT member and secondly, MUST have played at least one APAT Regional Main Event in that calender year.
This would do two things. Firstly it would encourage those who want to play in the WCOAP to join APAT and support the regional events throughout the year and also stop any "semi-Pro or Pro" rocking up and gatecrashing our Finale.
With a first prize in excess of £10k plus GPUKT seat, it seems unfair to allow non-members to participate. DTD attracts a large number of semi pro players who for a smallish stake could enjoy a very good payday.
Lets keep APAT for us Amateurs who support our tour.
APATs ethos is that it is open to everyone, but I have to say I agree with this post, this is our number one event of the year and as Curlage says, is it fair that any Tom Dick or Jane can rock up and play in our most prestigious event.
In regard to payouts, I agree with the majority of people who would prefer a flatter payout structure, and particularly with Wills view that the FT dynamics are not a refelection on true FTs because of the steep payout jumps
-
Referring to Dukes suggestion of changes, I totally support his proposed amendment. There is (IMO) too bigger jump from 4th to 1st and for 4th to 9th to pay the same amount seems wrong. In fact (again IMO) seems it could have the reverse effect of wanting players to go for the win. Play gets looser as some take a punt at winning a big hand with poor play or a rag call, hoping to hit, knowing that if they bust out they get the same as 4th.
Whilst we are talking of amendments, I would like to raise the question of non-APAT players being allowed to play in OUR World Championships. (WCOAP)
I would like to suggest that all players in any WCOAP event must firstly be an APAT member and secondly, MUST have played at least one APAT Regional Main Event in that calender year.
This would do two things. Firstly it would encourage those who want to play in the WCOAP to join APAT and support the regional events throughout the year and also stop any "semi-Pro or Pro" rocking up and gatecrashing our Finale.
With a first prize in excess of £10k plus GPUKT seat, it seems unfair to allow non-members to participate. DTD attracts a large number of semi pro players who for a smallish stake could enjoy a very good payday.
Lets keep APAT for us Amateurs who support our tour.
APATs ethos is that it is open to everyone, but I have to say I agree with this post, this is our number one event of the year and as Curlage says, is it fair that any Tom Dick or Jane can rock up and play in our most prestigious event.
In regard to payouts, I agree with the majority of people who would prefer a flatter payout structure, and particularly with Wills view that the FT dynamics are not a refelection on true FTs because of the steep payout jumps
Going to disagree with closing the main event here. I think the weekend was awesome with people turning up from all over and making a great tournament. The side events would not have been so well supported if the main event had not been so big. People would not have come to DtD to play just a 6-Max event or an Omaha event.
In most organisations it is the "flagship" event that first attracts people to it. Therefore I would want this to continue and get an even bigger event next year. I have friends who I am trying to convince to start playing APAT events and APAT's coverage along with the youtube video of the event has got some of them thinking about it very hard. This is the sort of event that attracts new players.
I would prefer it is kept for amateur players but poker is a game where that is very hard to do. There are people who it is hard to say if they are semi-pros or not. What is a semi pro player in poker terms?
Some kind of special tournament for APAT members would be great but I don"t think it should be the world championship. Maybe we could even organise an "unoffical" one during the off season somehow which would allow people like Rich and Leigh to play?
-
As a supporter of APAT since inception, and someone that has cashed at a couple of events I have always thought that the payout structure was in need of change. Having said that I have always fallen into the school of " let the people who run the events, run them" If I do not like it I can vote with my feet. It is obvious from reading the thread that the majority would like the payout structure changed. So how do we go about this?
Many moons ago it was muted that we would elect a players committee who could vote and suggest ways of improving the APAT ethic, I"m sure that Rio raised this point on many occasions. Is this idea, dead in the water or is it still a possability
If the majority want to change the structure will it go to a vote, or will the status quo remain?
The majority of the decisions made by the directors I applaud, but this one do"es need change
-
Many moons ago it was mooted that we would elect a players committee who could vote and suggest ways of improving the APAT ethic, I"m sure that Rio raised this point on many occasions. Is this idea, dead in the water or is it still a possibility
I know Alan was very keen but I seem to recall that the idea was shelved (at least temporarily) although I"m sure APAT would welcome opinions on it"s re-inception.
I also have a vague memory that one of the reasons for the shelving was that players/members would voice their opinions through the forum so actual participation in the committee seemed (at least at the time) to be somewhat unnecessary.
As I said, it"s only a vague recollection so I could be wrong.
If the majority want to change the structure will it go to a vote, or will the status quo remain?
No...it won"t go to a vote unless APAT want it to [and even then, the mechanics of a vote of the ENTIRE membership is problematical] although I"m sure the Powers That Be will take on board all of the discussions and views expressed here. They have show willingness to adapt to a wish for change before.
I would stress that the views expressed here represent a very TINY sample of the APAT membership (and the loudest of course). Just because the majority of the people posting in this thread want something does not mean that it"s supported by the majority of the membership.
It probably is (or they are apathetic about it [semi-pun]) but it"s not guaranteed.
-
I would stress that the views expressed here represent a very TINY sample of the APAT membership (and the loudest of course). Just because the majority of the people posting in this thread want something does not mean that it"s supported by the majority of the membership.
While this is true - all APAT members have joined the forum and have access to this thread. A vote is very hard to organise so feedback from this thread is up there with the only ways to get feedback. Overall - it will hopefully give a good representation of the players wants.
-
Many moons ago it was mooted that we would elect a players committee who could vote and suggest ways of improving the APAT ethic, I"m sure that Rio raised this point on many occasions. Is this idea, dead in the water or is it still a possibility
I know Alan was very keen but I seem to recall that the idea was shelved (at least temporarily) although I"m sure APAT would welcome opinions on it"s re-inception.
I also have a vague memory that one of the reasons for the shelving was that players/members would voice their opinions through the forum so actual participation in the committee seemed (at least at the time) to be somewhat unnecessary.
As I said, it"s only a vague recollection so I could be wrong.
If the majority want to change the structure will it go to a vote, or will the status quo remain?
No...it won"t go to a vote unless APAT want it to [and even then, the mechanics of a vote of the ENTIRE membership is problematical] although I"m sure the Powers That Be will take on board all of the discussions and views expressed here. They have show willingness to adapt to a wish for change before.
I would stress that the views expressed here represent a very TINY sample of the APAT membership (and the loudest of course). Just because the majority of the people posting in this thread want something does not mean that it"s supported by the majority of the membership.
It probably is (or they are apathetic about it [semi-pun]) but it"s not guaranteed.
Thanks for the spelling lesson, but not required!!
Are your opinions as moderator purely personal or that of the directors of APAT?
As yet we have seen no imput from Des or Tighty, is this likely to be forthcoming?
-
Thanks for the spelling lesson, but not required!!
Sorry...that one"s a pet peeve of mine.
Are your opinions as moderator purely personal or that of the directors of APAT?
Oh...just my personal opinions...(being a mod has no bearing other than I"m a big fan of APAT) and I occasionally have chats with Leigh, Des and Richard on various subjects. I"m not an "insider" by any means.
What I was saying is that APAT (the "Company") will do what it wants to do...the only actual influence we have is in expressing our opinions here (and in person). We can"t MAKE them do anything.
The issues about voting have come up before in other matters (the committee being one). APAT has (I believe) well over 10,000 members...of which only about 7000 are members of the forum.
How many people have expressed an opinion here? Let"s be generous and say 70...that"s 1%....and not all of those were of the same opinion.
It"s tough to base a change on a 1% sample. The argument (if you will) is whether that (say) 75% of the 1% represent the membership as a whole.
As yet we have seen no imput from Des or Tighty, is this likely to be forthcoming?
Well, they have said something here...only just that they are interested in the opinions. I know that they DO care about what we think and I have no doubts that they will take this discussion into account when deciding things for S5 and beyond.
As always...my 2c.
-
The issues about voting have come up before in other matters (the committee being one). APAT has (I believe) well over 10,000 members...of which only about 7000 are members of the forum.
How many people have expressed an opinion here? Let"s be generous and say 70...that"s 1%....and not all of those were of the same opinion.
It"s tough to base a change on a 1% sample. The argument (if you will) is whether that (say) 75% of the 1% represent the membership as a whole.
Just out of curiousity, what do you think would be a better way to get the opinions of the membership other than this thread?
-
It doesn"t need to go to a vote. Des, Leigh, and Rich, all watch these threads and take on board opinions and suggestions, which then contribute to their decision making when putting together the structure for the next season.
-
The issues about voting have come up before in other matters (the committee being one). APAT has (I believe) well over 10,000 members...of which only about 7000 are members of the forum.
How many people have expressed an opinion here? Let"s be generous and say 70...that"s 1%....and not all of those were of the same opinion.
It"s tough to base a change on a 1% sample. The argument (if you will) is whether that (say) 75% of the 1% represent the membership as a whole.
Just out of curiousity, what do you think would be a better way to get the opinions of the membership other than this thread?
A postal survey would be the most accurate measure.
But, from experience with clients, less than 10% would reply so it would be more of the membership - but it would still be very much a minority.
It also wouldn"t be likely to come up with anything radically different to what has been suggested on this thread.
My view is that APAT should, and does, listen to it"s membership - but it"s not a democracy.
Opinions and arguments have been put forward, APAT can consider them and decide what changes to make.
After all, if something doesn"t work as people expect - it can always be changed back.
-
Just out of curiousity, what do you think would be a better way to get the opinions of the membership other than this thread?
Oh...I have no idea...it"s just that the forum gets the vocal people...like I said, they may be representative...probably are (is my feeling)..but you can"t be sure.
Postal vote...I doubt if APAT has postal addresses for anything other than a tiny %age of it"s membership...oh, and really expensive too.
You can"t easily run a vote based on email replies, AFAIK.
Forum software...a possibility but you get the sample issue again.
Perhaps a questionnaire type thingy to be handed out at live events...at least you"d get the opinion of those that show up! ;D
But, in truth, Steve is right...
It doesn"t need to go to a vote. Des, Leigh, and Rich, all watch these threads and take on board opinions and suggestions, which then contribute to their decision making when putting together the structure for the next season.
-
Some kind of special tournament for APAT members would be great but I don"t think it should be the world championship. Maybe we could even organise an "unoffical" one during the off season somehow which would allow people like Rich and Leigh to play?
now that did make me laugh. ;D
-
Thing about "non members" (didnt think there was such a thing) playing is that they often find out about APAT thru the tour visiting their town.
Colin young is a good example- he said he had no idea about APAT before the worlds at DTD and plans to travel and play a lot more events
-
.....at least means those who make the second day make a bit to cover their expenses for playing.
This was an interesting point which sort of got overlooked in all the kerfuffle and is deserving of some attention IMO.
I do think that the number of people brought back on the second day needs to be re-examined. It is disheartening to have to come back on Day 2 and not make any money. It"s happened more than once.
I know it"s something Tighty, Des and Leigh are aware of but perhaps playing a little longer to make sure would mean that those who bust out without a cash can at least plan a little bit better for the next day.
It is disheartening to have to come back and not cash. It happened to me last year in the Worlds. I came back on Day 2 for about 3/4 of an hour before i got busted but i wouldn"t change it. Day one finished about 2 in the morning when it happened to me so we"d been playing solid for 12 hours. That was tough enough. I"d rather come back the next day refreshed than just keep slogging it out just to get the numbers down.
As for not allowing deal making and the prize structure, I don"t mind either. the prize structure encourages people to aim for the top, which is not a bad thing imo. I do so anyway but some people are happy to just move up the ladder for that extra bit of cash. For me i want the win or at least a medal. The money is nice but not life changing. I prefer shiny things! :)
-
Thing about "non members" is its not a closed shop and anyone is welcome to play in any apat event as long as they are not a pro , you pay your money you take your chance
look wot happend to the wsop after they let anyone enter
1970 WSOP 6 players
2010 WSOP 7,319 players
-
Thing about "non members" (didnt think there was such a thing) playing is that they often find out about APAT thru the tour visiting their town.
Colin young is a good example- he said he had no idea about APAT before the worlds at DTD and plans to travel and play a lot more events
I spend most of the day during the 6-max at Colin"s table and he spoke to me about APAT again last weekend at the DTD deepstack event. He very much likes the medals and added value (and we talked about this before he won) and had nothing but praise for APAT. This coming from someone who has won the DTD Deepstack event twice!
I think, like me, he will play whether the payout structure changes or not. The money is nice, but a lot of APAT players are not playing for the money.
-
Not talking about payouts from 27th onwards- just the final table payout structure. I have no idea why APAT differs in this area.
APAT is a "training ground" for amateurs. Make no sense why their final table payout structure should differ from any other major tournament in the world.
I think this would be part of APAt"s evolution. We"ve had tweaks to the stucture- also introduced antes. Think this is the next step.
Totally agree here. Everything else is pretty much spot on but paying 4th the same as 9th i think is a bit daft, not to mention changing the whole dynamics of the game on the final table, and not in a good way. I think every place jump on the FT should come with a money jump as with every other tourney in the world.
-
Not talking about payouts from 27th onwards- just the final table payout structure. I have no idea why APAT differs in this area.
APAT is a "training ground" for amateurs. Make no sense why their final table payout structure should differ from any other major tournament in the world.
I think this would be part of APAt"s evolution. We"ve had tweaks to the stucture- also introduced antes. Think this is the next step.
Totally agree here. Everything else is pretty much spot on but paying 4th the same as 9th i think is a bit daft, not to mention changing the whole dynamics of the game on the final table, and not in a good way. I think every place jump on the FT should come with a money jump as with every other tourney in the world.
ok but you are a tart ;D ;D ;D ;D